Where Do I Compromise?

[Audiot]

I'm sure to be the odd man out here. If the cost differences are theoretical, that is if you have the ability to buy whatever you might reasonably want then I say go for it. I have a McIntosh, Oppo, Revel , JLA system and it is exactly what I wanted after having done much fussing and shopping and imagining. I have no regrets.

Regarding subs, the more the merrier but I have a different tale to tell regarding SVS and JL. I bought an SB16 and an F113V2. I bought the SVS first knowing I had thirty days to return it. It didn't work that well for me. I brought a JLA F113/2 home on loan and ran them off. I sent the SVS back and paid for the JL.
The SVS wasn't nearly as good on music and the JL worked at least as well or better for video. That was easy except for the cost, but now that it's done, I'm happy. If music is important, consider the JLA or another of the subs focused on tone quality as well as specs. The SVS specs out fine on paper but for me it didn't perform nearly as well. My room is 21.5 by 16 by 10 and has been treated. . A single JL works well, two will be better and I'm adding a second soon.

I think it's better to buy what you want if at all possible. No regrets. If you have to compromise, no regrets. You do the best you can and enjoy the rest of your life too.

Oh yeah....love the McIntosh stuff. Pretty, beefy, trouble free, sounds fabulous and comes with high resale. It's the schniz.....for me.

 

[ChGr]

Audiot -
Thanks much and luckily for me you've auditioned the very equipment I'm looking for.
Would you mind expanding on 'wasn't nearly as good on music' regarding the two subs? And the 'at least as well . . for video'? Yes, music is extremely important, but frankly so is video and the ability to feel the sub pressurizing the room. Would you comment on that difference between the 16" SVS and 13" JL? What are the sound differences? You'll see earlier in the thread that I'm working with 8,000 CF. I certainly don't expect the accuracy you'll achieve using room treatments, etc. but I want to get as close as I can.
Which processor are you using?

 

[ParadigmDawg]

I'm sure to be the odd man out here. If the cost differences are theoretical, that is if you have the ability to buy whatever you might reasonably want then I say go for it. I have a McIntosh, Oppo, Revel , JLA system and it is exactly what I wanted after having done much fussing and shopping and imagining. I have no regrets.

Regarding subs, the more the merrier but I have a different tale to tell regarding SVS and JL. I bought an SB16 and an F113V2. I bought the SVS first knowing I had thirty days to return it. It didn't work that well for me. I brought a JLA F113/2 home on loan and ran them off. I sent the SVS back and paid for the JL.
The SVS wasn't nearly as good on music and the JL worked at least as well or better for video. That was easy except for the cost, but now that it's done, I'm happy. If music is important, consider the JLA or another of the subs focused on tone quality as well as specs. The SVS specs out fine on paper but for me it didn't perform nearly as well. My room is 21.5 by 16 by 10 and has been treated. . A single JL works well, two will be better and I'm adding a second soon.

I think it's better to buy what you want if at all possible. No regrets. If you have to compromise, no regrets. You do the best you can and enjoy the rest of your life too.

Oh yeah....love the McIntosh stuff. Pretty, beefy, trouble free, sounds fabulous and comes with high resale. It's the schniz.....for me.

My 8,000 CF room laughed at the F113. It didn't laugh at the SVS PB13U.

 

[Audiot]

Audiot -
Thanks much and luckily for me you've auditioned the very equipment I'm looking for.
Would you mind expanding on 'wasn't nearly as good on music' regarding the two subs? And the 'at least as well . . for video'? Yes, music is extremely important, but frankly so is video and the ability to feel the sub pressurizing the room. Would you comment on that difference between the 16" SVS and 13" JL? What are the sound differences? You'll see earlier in the thread that I'm working with 8,000 CF. I certainly don't expect the accuracy you'll achieve using room treatments, etc. but I want to get as close as I can.
Which processor are you using?

My complete chain is as follows.

My room is 3300 CF. It is treated with GIK Bass traps (4) and 4 gobos that deal with the mains' first reflections.

Amp is an MC452, preamp is aC52. Oppo BD105 is the main source. I stream Tidal as well. Speakers are Salon2s. Sub is a single JLA F113V2 with JLA CR1 handling the crossover region. I plan to add a second sub soon. (My wife is the limiting factor and keeps me to a trot rather than a gallop when i comes to adding gear). Blue Jeans cables work fine. I feel it's a waste of money to buy expensive cables, and have real questions about those manufacturers that add networks to their cables. I listen in 2.1, so no surrounds, no bespoke processor apart from what the Oppo offers. This supports a Sony XBR940C for watching videos. Very impactful as just a 2.1, as is, adding surround channels would be fun to do at some future date. I'm patient and don't mind building it out in steps.

The JL sub was cleaner, with superior perceived transient response in my room. It provided clearer audible distinctions between tones and less undifferentiated rumble (on video) but a superior sense of attack and variation between both musical notes and summed effects No amount of fiddling or measurements I could bring to the party made the SVS approach the clarity of JL on music in my room. Room treatment took it all to the next level, especially "system focus" but was done after I settled on which sub to use. When doing summed bass for video, even the single JL can be startling. Much depends on integration and room placement. Getting those right makes the meal, but the results were just more musical with the JL sub. Also, although the JL cabinet is much smaller than the SVS, the driver is almost the same size. and offers like piston area. The smaller size is a plus for me but didn't go into my decision process since I do have room for multiple subs from either manufacturer.

Note: SVS was very accommodating and did not make the return of their sub into an ordeal. They were good to deal with and very responsive. JLA has been the same and I have spoken with Barry Ober, their CS guy, several times. He's been highly informative.

Since your room is bound to be different than mine, you could order the SVS once you have finished up the rest of your build and see how it integrates for you. If, like me, you find it doesn't satisfy your needs, return it with no harm lost except the effort involved. If you're happy with it, so be it. If not, go for the JLA. I'm an outlier on the SVS issue on this forum, but I know other people who have had the same experiences I did in comparing the two. Bottom line: I was surprised how much different the two subs sounded in my space.

All that said, without comparing them you'll never know but for me in my room, the differences were stark. The JLA was also much easier to optimize in my room, although if you read me all the way through you'll get the sense I never was able to really dial the SVS in with the tools it provided. That may be true, but I followed the rules for both and was open minded without a brand preference at the start.

Sub placement was decided by modeling in REW, and then doing a sub crawl. The crawl resulted in different (and superior) placement than the various REW models suggested.

My room is dedicated so "I do what I want!" That's a big help.

My rig was always planned as a music first two channel system and while I sometimes contemplate adding surrounds, I love the way it works on music and continue to drive it further forward in that direction before I move to full surround. But that could happen!

 

[Audiot]

My 8,000 CF room laughed at the F113. It didn't laugh at the SVS PB13U.

Whatever makes you happy is fine with me. The SVS was not nearly as precise for me, albeit it probably does play louder, if that's your measure. Both were adequate for me in that respect.

 

[shadyJ]

Having heard a variety of different SVS and JL Audio subwoofers, I haven't heard anything exceptional in JL Audio subs. And there is certainly nothing that shows up in any measurement that would indicate any qualitative advantage either.

 

[Audiot]

I hear just the inverse and tend to doubt some of SVS' specs, starting with the piston's diameter.

 

[shadyJ]

SVS specs has been pretty reliable in my experience. I don't see anything badly off about the piston's diameter. I am far more concerned about end performance anyway.

 

[Audiot]

Not reliable in respect to the diameter of the woofer. That one's easy to debunk. If they don't get that straight, what else do they fudge? Cone size, disregarding the surrounds is almost identical. If you include the surrounds, the 16" SVS is a scant 3/4" larger than the accurately rated size of the JL.

I had them both in the same system in the same room. Your observations are accurate for you, I guess, but don't align with mine. We can agree to disagree and both have valid opinions, but i I have to opt between your experience and mine, I'll go with mine every time. Hope you understand!

The advantage of having auditioned them together in the same room with the same system doesn't necessarily make anything you say inaccurate for you, but unless you've done that, you haven't got a good apples to apples comparison as they performed in my rig.JL's specs and test results are exemplary. The quality of their products, made here in America, is rarely questioned and I beg to differ on the "MEH" labeling.

Here are the actual driver sizes compared. I agree, size isn't everything, but if labeling in advertising isn't accurate, what else might be questioned?

 

[everettT]

How did you set them up? Who's Auto eq, manual eq , or no eq. In the OPs price range id look at Seaton Sound for that room size and the new HP18s. After that JTR. The room is massive and for the price of JLs the Seatons are a steal with wicked output to boot.

Not reliable in respect to the diameter of the woofer. That one's easy to debunk. If they don't get that straight, what else do they fudge? Cone size, disregarding the surrounds is almost identical. If you include the surrounds, the 16" SVS is a scant 3/4" larger than the accurately rated size of the JL.

I had them both in the same system in the same room. Your observations are accurate for you, I guess, but don't align with mine. We can agree to disagree and both have valid opinions, but i I have to opt between your experience and mine, I'll go with mine every time. Hope you understand!

The advantage of having auditioned them together in the same room with the same system doesn't necessarily make anything you say inaccurate for you, but unless you've done that, you haven't got a good apples to apples comparison as they performed in my rig.JL's specs and test results are exemplary. The quality of their products, made here in America, is rarely questioned and I beg to differ on the "MEH" labeling.

Here are the actual driver sizes compared. I agree, size isn't everything, but if labeling in advertising isn't accurate, what else might be questioned?

 

[shadyJ]

The SB16 driver measures 16" when you include the frame. Some manufacturers do that, and some do not. There are different ways of measuring driver diameters. Some include the frame, some just the surround, some only do half the surround. I don't know of any that just does the cone.

Btw, for the price of the F113, I would also be looking at Funk Audio or Deep Sea Sound.

 

[Audiot]

How did you set them up? Who's Auto eq, manual eq , or no eq. In the OPs price range id look at Seaton Sound for that room size and the new HP18s. After that JTR. The room is massive and for the price of JLs the Seatons are a steal with wicked output to boot.

In the end, I did a sub crawl. I can outline that if desired. I modeled in REW but their modeler doesn't account for certain variations so it didn't do a precise job for me. I can outline if desired.

That landed me with a sub crawl as the best option. I put the sub in the MLP and played tone through the system, crawled the room. I had four roughly equal spots, but two were impractical even a dedicated room. I selected the one that was the best logistic compromise.

The JLA has it's own auto EQ, DARO (18 bands of cut). I used it with the microphone they supply (added value ). To be honest, the improvements where not that significant in my MLP in the bare room. When I added the treatments, I re-eq'd and the differences were a little more pronounced. Adding treatment was fun. Big gains.

As you know, the SVS has three bands of full parametric. I used those to tune by ear. Essentially, you can't get flat bass response in a small room. Bass frequencies are too long so you're going to have nulls, just unavoidable. You have to pick the best spot and after that align to the speakers. I use an external crossover now, recently added. At the time I relied on the low pass of both subs, a compromise. My OPPO could provide a basic crossover function but I don't use it as a preamp. I use the Mc, so I went with what the manufacturers gave me. We measured with SMAART, but as you know, there are limits you need to be aware of when looking at a small room's measurements.

And that's it. I haven't heard the Seatons so I can't comment. All I have is what worked for me. For that matter, there are a lot of guys raving about the SB16, so as I said from the start, on this forum I'm an outlier. If I was looking to save money, I might look at a Swarm, and I wouldn't turn my nose up on anything I haven't tried. There are a lot of people working in the field and there are some excellent products available.

However, my experience has been I can only trust other people's opinions so far. Confirmation bias starts creeping in once you own something. It's no different for me. I probably like my JL better now that I own it for no other reason than it's mine. But I didn't come to that without some serious research and hard work. If I'd dedicated less dough to buying a sub, I'm sure I could have found something I could happily live with. Maybe a Seaton, maybe a Funk, maybe a B&W or REL. I don't feel compelled to buy my gear onlineand I'm not clear that for me, that's always the best way to go about it. I do like to hear i first.

YMMV

 

[Audiot]

The SB16 driver measures 16" when you include the frame. Some manufacturers do that, and some do not. There are different ways of measuring driver diameters. Some include the frame, some just the surround, some only do half the surround. I don't know of any that just does the cone.

Btw, for the price of the F113, I would also be looking at Funk Audio or Deep Sea Sound.

Of course. However, JL does not include the frame in their measurements. For another instance, JBL Pro does not include the frames in their (raw) driver specs, JBL consumer does not spec according to any convention. That's a variation within the same parent company and it says something.

OEM manufacturers give specs that include the piston area and the frame dimensions. Again, what does one practice versus another say about the spec? I mention this only because you brought up "specs" as a comparative data point in your first post. There are specs and there are specs. And again, I think size is relevant only to a point but I also think this is illustrative of something to be aware of about specs in general.

Regarding price: Discounts are available on all gear sold at retail and I got one on my sub. It narrowed the gap significantly. I was able to do that while auditioning the sub at home. List to list is only meaningful in the online world. In retail, it's just the starting point.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I use an external crossover now, recently added. At the time I relied on the low pass of both subs, a compromise.

Interesting system you have. I also run Salon2s and a single sub (A Velodyne DD18 Plus, which was planned to be twins, but the second wasn't needed in the end). I fiddled and fiddled and fiddled, using various crossover frequencies, several sub positions, and numerous EQ strategies. None made me happy. Finally, I decided to get creative, and turned off the sub's auto EQ function, ran the Salon2s full range, used a low-pass filter of 80Hz with a 24db/oct slope on the sub, and used the PEQs in the sub to tune it just to fill in the nulls at my listening seat, and slightly beef up the Salon2s below about 30Hz. (My Salon2s sit about five feet from the back wall and nowhere near the side walls, so I get little bass reinforcement.) I used an OmniMicII to do measurements to figure out the PEQ settings. Success! No sub crawl or anything else, I just placed it midway between the Salon2s. I thought I invented a new technique, but TLSGuy tells me this is common in Europe.

Anyway, the Salon2s have a 120Hz internal crossover to the woofers, so any external crossover is just going to waste six really nice 8" drivers and a heroic cabinet. With the Salon2s running full-range it is like having three subs. You might consider trying it.

 

[Audiot]

Anyway, the Salon2s have a 120Hz internal crossover to the woofers, so any external crossover is just going to waste six really nice 8" drivers and a heroic cabinet. With the Salon2s running full-range it is like having three subs. You might consider trying it.

Hi Irv. We've discussed this before on another thread.

Of course I fretted over wasting the otherwise excellent existing LF qualities of the Salons. I used the same technique you discuss before picking up the crossover. My solution prior to getting the CR1 was not dissimilar to your current setup except that I rolled my sub off starting at 45 Hz. Going much higher in my situation resulted in mud. If I recall, you go higher with your sub before rolling it off than I did with results that satisfy you (100Hz?). I had (and still do) my sub off to one side (left in this case) and never had problems with localization; that wasn't an issue. But running that way, I wasn't getting the slam I'd hoped for without generating a lot of spurious stuff I didn't want. I had to dial the sub back to achieve an integration that worked without muddying things up. With the crossover, I get the control I want plus freedom of placement within the room's geometric limitations to take best advantage of the situation. By way of support of this approach, this is also the solution Revel suggests. That is, a full crossover. The existing woofers take over at 80Hz and provide the harmonics and transient detail that make localization a non-problem.

You could make the argument that I might have purchased Studios instead but I'm happy. My system has been an evolution and the package works. I contend (as others have before me) that you won't really know just how well a sub can blend without a crossover and that the low pass provided by most sub manufacturers doesn't provide enough control for an ideal match. You end up throwing away one or the other, the sub's output or the Revel's, without it. The smoothness and clarity of the Salon2s is appreciated and I get additional headroom by pulling the main amp off duty on the bottom two octaves. Yes, it seems a waste but it works in a way that relying on a mechanical roll off can't.

Note that prior to discontinuation, the Revel Rhythm sub included the high pass (and delays as well) and that Voecks recommended using it if you bought into their complete system.

My system sounded fine using your approach as long as I kept levels relatively low. without a crossover, the integration was more problematic for me. The jury's still out on adding the second sub, but I'm leaning towards doing so.

 

[DD66000]

I’m building a music/HT system (60/40 split) and down to deciding on the processor, subs and amps. Looking at somewhat higher-end and slightly less high-end equipment. If you were to compromise or cut corners in one of these categories in order to save money, which would it be? My last system lasted 15 years and I expect this one to, as well.

My potential comparisons:

Processors: McIntosh MX122 v. Marantz AV8802A v. Anthem AVM 60. Potential savings of $4,000

Amp: Planning on getting a MAC 2-ch for the mains, but as a supporting amp for the surrounds and Zone 2, looking at McIntosh MC8207 v. Outlaw 7700. Potential savings of $3,750.

Subs: 2) JL Audio Fathom F113 v. 2) SVS SB16-Ultra v. 2) SVS SB13-Ultra. Potential savings of $6,000.

Or the converse, in which of these three categories would you definitely not compromise?

I really appreciate the feedback.

I'm neither a noob or a snob when it comes to audio, as such I look at audio objectively.
There is such a thing as synergy....as in the amps mate well with the speakers or they do not. I've auditioned systems in both directions. So if you think the McIntosh mate well, then go with that.
For simplicity, I use an Oppo 105D as my processor paired with my Parasound P7 pre amp > Parasound power amps > custom mains.
Very happy with that combo.
Now, let's look at your square room: the best way to deal with a square room to to setup on one or another diagonal of the room. Placing the LCRs across one corner, so then firing down the long dimension of the room does two things.
First, the audio output no longer sees the room as being square.
Second, with the L/R speakers on a 45* angle to the walls means the early reflection points change dramatically, as those two walls get farther away from the speakers as you go along their lengths. In effect, you end up with no "early" reflections, that's a good thing.
I've setup more than a few systems on the diagonals of many square rooms, everytime, it's an improvement.
As for subs, two is always better than one.

 

[Audiot]

I'm neither a noob or a snob when it comes to audio, as such I look at audio objectively.

Now, let's look at your square room: the best way to deal with a square room to to setup on one or another diagonal of the room. Placing the LCRs across one corner, so then firing down the long dimension of the room does two things.
First, the audio output no longer sees the room as being square.
Second, with the L/R speakers on a 45* angle to the walls means the early reflection points change dramatically, as those two walls get farther away from the speakers as you go along their lengths. In effect, you end up with no "early" reflections, that's a good thing.
I've setup more than a few systems on the diagonals of many square rooms, everytime, it's an improvement.
As for subs, two is always better than one.

That sounds a good solution if one's application and furnishings allow. Otherwise, treatment can offer some relief. The room is always the big variable in any home system and dealing with the realities of that eludes a lot of people. Unless one acknowledges and addresses that, optimization within the space is elusive. Not all domestic situations allow for treatment, but the majority will benefit from it. However, I can see your solution being problematic in a small room as the speakers would need to be pulled quite far into the available space to achieve any needed physical separation. Otherwise, you end up with two speakers in a corner.

It's impossible to achieve flat LF response in most domestic situations so you do the best you can. Nulls can't be tuned out.

Oppo does an excellent job of providing value for money. If budget is an issue, it can be pressed into service to substitute for a preamp in an all digital system and provides a basic crossover as well. I opted for a more full featured solution, but the Oppo can get it done at a fair price.

 

[DD66000]

If a person has to use a square room and CAN setup on the diagonal, then that is what should be done. That will work better than any wall treatments in a square room.
As for the Oppo, as a processor, yes. I do not use it as a pre-amp. In my system the P7 is the pre-amp for the entire system, analog/digital sources.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Hi Irv. We've discussed this before on another thread.

Of course I fretted over wasting the otherwise excellent existing LF qualities of the Salons. I used the same technique you discuss before picking up the crossover. My solution prior to getting the CR1 was not dissimilar to your current setup except that I rolled my sub off starting at 45 Hz. Going much higher in my situation resulted in mud. If I recall, you go higher with your sub before rolling it off than I did with results that satisfy you (100Hz?). I had (and still do) my sub off to one side (left in this case) and never had problems with localization; that wasn't an issue. But running that way, I wasn't getting the slam I'd hoped for without generating a lot of spurious stuff I didn't want. I had to dial the sub back to achieve an integration that worked without muddying things up. With the crossover, I get the control I want plus freedom of placement within the room's geometric limitations to take best advantage of the situation. By way of support of this approach, this is also the solution Revel suggests. That is, a full crossover. The existing woofers take over at 80Hz and provide the transient detail to make localization a non-problem.

You could make the argument that I might have purchased Studios instead but I'm happy. My system has been an evolution and the package works. I contend (as others have before me) that you won't really know just how well a sub can blend without a crossover and that the low pass provided by most sub manufacturers doesn't provide enough control for an ideal match. You end up throwing away one or the other, the sub's output or the Revel's, without it. The smoothness and clarity of the Salon2s is appreciated and I get additional headroom by pulling the main amp of duty on the bottom two octaves. Yes, it seems a waste but it works in a way that relying on a mechanical roll off can't.

Note that prior to discontinuation, the Revel Rhythm sub included the high pass (and delays as well) and that Voecks recommended using it if you bought into their complete system.

My system sounded fine using your approach as long as I kept levels relatively low. without a crossover, the integration was more problematic for me. The jury's still out on adding the second sub, but I'm leaning towards doing so.

Sorry, I didn't remember discussing it before.

In my previous home I did use a 100Hz low-pass filter due to a suck-out in the 80+Hz range I was trying to fill. In my current room I'm using 80Hz.

I know Revel supports a full crossover; I just never liked the results in either room.

I would not recommend the Studio2 over the Salon2, at least if you have a large room. (I can't tell from the photos.) The Salon2 plays louder more effortlessly, IMO.

If you use a crossover I suspect a second sub will sound a lot better.

 

[Audiot]

Sorry, I didn't remember discussing it before.

In my previous home I did use a 100Hz low-pass filter due to a suck-out in the 80+Hz range I was trying to fill. In my current room I'm using 80Hz.

I know Revel supports a full crossover; I just never liked the results in either room.

I would not recommend the Studio2 over the Salon2, at least if you have a large room. (I can't tell from the photos.) The Salon2 plays louder more effortlessly, IMO.

If you use a crossover I suspect a second sub will sound a lot better.

No problem. I don't post here too often, but when I do, it becomes a marathon. I remembered our discussions from the Revel vs Sopra 2 thread but that was a few months ago. I had briefly considered the Studio2s but opted for the Salon2s and I have not regretted that decision. You might say I opted not to compromise there.

As we can agree, since the room is such a significant component in getting sound you like, what works in one may not be optimal in another. However, the crossover point for any given sub and main speaker usually has an optimal choice. But like most things in this hobby, taste and the room will enter into the equation for better or worse. Small domestic spaces make for a lot of compromise on their own.