# SVS PC13 Ultra



## bigbucks

Maybe i'm mistaken but as of yet i haven't found a svs pc 13 ultra test/review on this forum which i find very odd so cn anyone point me in the right direction or explain why this is?


----------



## tonyvdb

*Re: Svs pc13 ultra*

The PC 13Ultra is virtually the same as the PB 13Ultra Lots of reviews here of that one. Here is one. And here is one of many tests.


----------



## bigbucks

*Re: Svs pc13 ultra*

Sorry but even though their supposed to be very similar in performance one of these enclosures is in the traditional rectangular shape whilst the other is in a cylindrical design with ports firing upwards. I can't help but think if the pc 13 ultra was tested in open air (excuse my terminology but i can't think of the correct word to explain the name of this process) like the rest of the subs, the results may prove different. So far the pb 13 ultra has been tested with each port bunged and then totally sealed. I can't believe the pc 13 ultra hasn't been tested by a website of this calibre yet!


----------



## tonyvdb

*Re: Svs pc13 ultra*

The position of the ports will have no barring on how it sounds or preforms, The drivers are identical and the enclosure size is the same even though one is a box and the other is the cylinder.


----------



## bigbucks

*Re: Svs pc13 ultra*

Without sounding rude, must i be brainwashed to believe that these two subs so different in design are going to sound identical in performance.............furthermore is that the reason why the pc13 ultra hasn't been tested yet?


----------



## Mike P.

*Re: Svs pc13 ultra*

No one is brainwashing you to believe anything. Tony simply stated a fact that the shape of the cabinet has no effect on the sound. If you don't believe it then by all means buy one and test it.


----------



## bigbucks

*Re: Svs pc13 ultra*

For everyones information, i already own a pc13 ultra sub which is why i was asking why there hasn't been an official test done for this sub like there has been for so many other subs on this website. 
Surely i can't be the only person asking this question? why not put it to an official poll for a response?


----------



## ironglen

*Re: Svs pc13 ultra*

Wow, bigbucks, you sure know how to make an impression...you've got not one, but two knowledgeable people responding to your post, I guess I need to be more creative with my threads to get greater response:rofl:

If you've got a pc13, svs will gladly support what the mods are saying-that there will be very little, if any noticeable difference in sound quality/output. Boxes are just more traditional and cylinders are, well, cylinders; and they aren't everyone's cup of tea as some may say. When the pc shares components with the pb, I'm sure SVS would rather submit another one of their products for review rather than an identical performing sub. Lots of products and limited reviews means competition for advertisement.:newspaper:

I like the idea of a poll-see how many HTS'ers own either a box or cylinder from SVS-all models. Better yet, a combined poll with all sub owners that have box or cylinder. But I think you can guess the results...


----------



## bigbucks

*Re: Svs pc13 ultra*

Thankyou for your feedback as you do seem to try and make some sort of sense out of this debate, however what a manufacturer specifies and what actually happens is two different things. From the way i've seen all the other subs tested on this forum i'm sorry but theres no way these two subs are going to sound the same. Fair enough they may share the same parts but thats the only similarities the two share..........another example: the pb 13 ultra has forward firing ports, now if you tune the sub to 15hz optimum and then send a 15-20 hz testtone at 100db through the sub but you stick a piece of paper in front of the two remaining ports how long would the paper stay in place for? which leads me to how much air movement you could feel from the sub if the sub is placed next to the tv in front of the viewer. Lets face it you wouldn't have this problem with the pc13 ultra. however if we do our research properly we would find out that due to the cylinder being a slightly smaller cubic litre enclosure compared to the pb13 ultra, the pc 13 ultra suffers slightly from port chuffing problems in comparison.


----------



## ironglen

*Re: Svs pc13 ultra*

I'm not familiar with the direct, unimpeded air movement relating to spl effectiveness, ie whether a driver, or port, must face the listener at the low freqs as they are always touted as omnidirectional, with long wavelengths, but see the importance of whether they are reinforced by walls, listening area. Many noteable subs are downfiring, but effective, even when compared to sidefiring, and you never feel direct air movement.
Your volume consideration would indeed be a factor. You can't use outside dimensions to calculate interior volume, though, not even close. Don't be deceived by the tube's thickness, it is likely only several mm or 1/4" thick vs the lost volume of wood in a box sub, and a small difference in diameter makes a huge impact to volume. 
I'm interested in how, if any, differences occur in sound quality due to room placement differences using different subs of similar build parts. This seems like a very interesting topic to me.:nerd:


----------



## GregBe

*Re: Svs pc13 ultra*

Why would SVS not be objective when comparing their own two subs. I can see if you asked them to compare one of their subs to a competitor, but when everything any of these ID companies says is so analyzed and picked over with fine toothed comb, I just don't see them being less than honest on this particular subject.


----------



## tonyvdb

*Re: Svs pc13 ultra*



bigbucks said:


> Thankyou for your feedback as you do seem to try and make some sort of sense out of this debate, however what a manufacturer specifies and what actually happens is two different things.


You do have the right to question this however I can say that SVS is NOT your ordinary company and customer service and product quality is there number one priority. You wont find many companies that operate this way and if you doubt the performance specifications that they posted why dont you send them an email and I am sure Ed Mullen or Ron Stimpson can clarify any questions or concerns you have. 



GregBe said:


> Why would SVS not be objective when comparing their own two subs. I can see if you asked them to compare one of their subs to a competitor, but when everything any of these ID companies says is so analyzed and picked over with fine toothed comb, I just don't see them being less than honest on this particular subject.


Agreed, Ed Mullen has already stated in many posts that both subs preform almost identical and given the quality of either I would have to believe what he says.
Our very own member who is on staff Ikka tests many of the subs and you could send him a PM and see what he says.


----------



## mojomike

*Re: Svs pc13 ultra*

Actually there are a set of objective tests similar to Ilkka's tests which show some fair differences between the PB13 and the PC13 in the areas below 20-25hz. These test show the PB13 to be stronger in the deep bass area when the two are compared in similar states of tune. The PB13 does have more internal volume which would favor the deep bass performance. How audible the differences are, I don't know.

http://www.avtalk.co.uk//forumdisplay.php?f=54


----------



## bigbucks

*Re: Svs pc13 ultra*

Thankyou................at last someone who understands what i'm talking about. thanks for your feedback


----------



## gperkins_1973

*Re: Svs pc13 ultra*

Ive had both in my room and the PB13 is alot cleaner and is not as boomy. I get no port noise unlike the PC13 and the deep bass is more pleasurable. The PB13 is definitely the clear winner and it looks better.
cheers

Graham


----------



## Thomasdk1405

*Re: Svs pc13 ultra*



gperkins_1973 said:


> Ive had both in my room and the PB13 is alot cleaner and is not as boomy. I get no port noise unlike the PC13 and the deep bass is more pleasurable. The PB13 is definitely the clear winner and it looks better.
> cheers
> 
> Graham


I have the PC13 and are more than happy with it - ok - haven't heard the box edition - but to call it boomy - not in my setup (also have the AS-EQ1). Also - I don't think the PC13 would have gotten so many nice reviews if it was boomy: http://www.lsound.no/index.php?side=info&group=240&subgroup=1156&id=427121
I havent heard anything like port noise - perhaps I don't play on same levels as you do - but according to: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/subw...1/215-a-secrets-subwoofer-review.html?start=1
the bench test - we have some low distortion readings here. So the clear winner - no - but winner perhaps - it digs deeper, but weighs in over 70 kg's or 155 lbs - same as a washing machine or +30 kg's over the PC13 - alot more. About the looks - it's all about taste !

cheers
Thomas


----------



## gperkins_1973

*Re: Svs pc13 ultra*

Thomas,

Even when the SVS chap came over to my house to demo the PB sub he couldn't believe the difference in my room.
The box is much cleaner than the cylinder and that horrid port noise of the cylinder! Yuk! Bad design in my eyes.

The box even at full load doesn't chuff at all.

The main problem I found was moving it around to find the best listening position. Talk about bad back. :doh:

cheers

Graham


----------



## bigbucks

*Re: Svs pc13 ultra*

To be honest i'd like to know how the two subs compare when being driven, however i too have never experienced any sort of port chuffing or boomyness from the sub, it has took me some time to realise how to get the best from it but i don't think the pc13 ultra is that far behind the pb13ultra. Sometimes you have to question if someone knows how to set up a sub correctly and in which case they will never achieve the optimum from any sub they have.


----------



## gperkins_1973

Bigbucks,

Every room is different I suppose. Take for example the Pulse DVD it chuffed at -20db on the MV and bassotronics was another source of music that made the PC13 chuff.

Mine hasn't been EQ'd with an external device but only with Onkyo's Audyssey but the PB13 sounds cool.

They both are still not the most musical sub though which is why I am still searching... 

cheers

Graham


----------



## Moonfly

I have extensively tested the PB13 and the PC13 against each other and found the 2 quite different.

To start off with, here is the proof I actually did the testing and I was using REW to setup and analyse everything:






After a considerable few hours I came to only 1 conclusion, the box was better. I posted my findings on another forum and it seemed to cause some debate as well as a bit of backlash :bigsmile:

Anyways, I found that on paper (well REW) the in room response of the 2 subs in any given position was
pretty much exactly the same, so there was no debate for me on the performance side of things. I did however find that the cylinder seemed 3-4 db louder given the same settings and after system setup and calibration was carried out. This gave the cylinder more apparent power from an audible POV, but it just didnt seem as controlled. It was more boomy, and it did cause doors etc in the room to rattle a bit more.

When I tested the box it had the same power and authority, but was ever so slightly quieter. I could feel it the same but it wasnt booming the same. The bass had more texture than the cylinder and sounded more accurate. For music this made the box the clear superior, and for movies, scenes like the hospital demolition in The Dark Knight were much better. The collapse of the building was just a loud constant rumble with the cylinder, where as with the box you could hear a definite difference as the building started to crumble, to full collapse and then the quieter rumbles of the last remnants settling.

Other tests included the chuffing thresh hold of the 2 subs, and the box seemed to suffer very little unless the attempt to get it to chuff was deliberate, where as the cylinder did it on a regular basis. Also I found the grill on the cylinder, at highish spl levels, significantly contributed to the soundtrack with grill noise, and this was very distracting for me. The grill was never an issue on the box.

All in all, the cylinder seems a power house of a brute in a Mike Tyson kinda way, while the box is just as accomplished, but with more technical ability in a Lennox Lewis kinda way.

Just my ten pence. :sweat:


----------



## counsil

Great write-up Moonfly. I appreciate you taking the time to test both subs individually and then having the guts to write about your findings.


----------



## ironglen

Any blind testing involved?:sneeky:


----------



## Moonfly

That would have kinda pointless, as my friend and I both new which sub was turned on during the test. Suffice to say the difference was very noticeable to both of us in his room. I do concede it was only 1 room, but 3 AVF members who swapped after reading my write up all agreed.

FYI, the reason for the testing was because of the following.

I had a PB Ultra and was giving setup advice to fellow forum members. Nothing seemed to cure the issues they had with their cylinders and I couldnt replicate them in my room with my box. During this time a friend demo'd my sub as he was buying a new one. He ordered a cylinder because of its smaller footprint. Once his sub arrived he couldnt get it just right and was reporting the issue other members had with chuffing and grill noise. So, I took my laptop down to his house to set his sub up for him. I spent 8 hourse moving the sub around, running graphs, re-running Audyssey on his amp and trying to get it right. I did improve it a vast amount but we still couldnt completely cure the issues and it didnt sound as good as my box did in my room. At the end of that session the only conclusion we came to was that we had to do a direct side by side shootout to rule out the sub design as the issue.

The following week I took my sub to his house and we spent another 6 hours on the shootout. The end of that brought us to the conclusion the design of the box was indeed superior as the differences between his house and mine remained. The box sounded more accurate, articulate and its quality just seemed a step up.

I came to the following conclusions about the box vs cylinder. 

The cylinder suffers from artefacts in the audio due to the drivers location to the bass plate. Both subs when driven hard (near the drivers limits) made a kind of clacking sound. On the box you could only hear this when the speakers were disconnected, but the with the cylinder the proximity of the bass plate seemed to amplify this to the point where you could hear it over the main speakers, and at lower volumes. This was never an issue with the box as you could never normally hear it, and the cylinder seemed to make this audible at lower levels that were within normal listening levels.

The driver seems to operate a bit tighter in the box, in that the bass sounds tighter, like the driver can start and stop quicker. On the cylinder it seemed overblown compared to the box, like distortion was creeping in. I guessed a bit at this, but one theory I thought about was that due to the box's design, perhaps there was more pressure inside the box helping with driver accuracy, more in line with how a sealed box would work.

Chuffing came in sooner on the cylinder, and again well within my friends normal listening levels. The box didnt chuff at all, even in 10hz mode, untill I put the sonic boom scene on from Iron man, put the amp at reference level, and upped the bass channel from -6 to +5. This caused the box to finally chuff, but only in 10hz tune. My theory on this is that the ports bend inside the box, and sit a 90 degrees to the back of the driver. In the cylinder they are dead straight and sit face on to the back of the driver. The box also has more wadding inside between the rear of the driver and the port inlet. To me this basically meant the velocity of air in the ports is faster on the cylinder, and this leads to chuffing coming in sooner.

The last issue I found/had, was the grill on the cylinder. Audible noise from the air being forced through the holes in the grill was very apparent from moderate to high levels. This simply never ever happened with the box. One reason for this IMO is the apparent increased air velocity from the ports, but this isnt the main reason. The grill on the cylinder is fixed above the ports in a small area. This area inside the grill and between the ports is a sealed area, so all the air from the ports is forced through the grill. On top of this, the small area and the fact its sealed means the grill resists the air a bit, increasing the pressure and velocity if the air being forced through the grill. On the box, the top of the grill is open so there is no pressure build up, and the grill is larger so there are more holes for the port wind to travel through. This means on the box there is basically never any grill noise at any level that you can hear.

One last advantage of the box we found was with port resonance. We concluded that both sub had the occasional port resonance sound with certain material, but the box seemed to mask it a bit better. I think the fact the driver is sat right over the ports helps mask these sounds, but with the cylinder, the noise seemed a little easier to detect, perhaps because the ports are away from the driver.

To sum up, there are things that are noticeable with both subs but that the box seemed to hide better, but in any case these small issues didnt really give any cause for concern with either design. The main issue was the cylinder seemed boomier, chuffed earlier than the box (and noticeably sooner) and suffered from grill noise caused by the air rushing through the grill holes.

Not all people report the issue though, so we came to the conclusion certain rooms must make the issue more apparent. Perhaps when setting up for reference volumes and flat responses, certain rooms push the sub harder for the same perceived output causing the issues. That said in our side by side test the box performed better, which leads us to conclude the box is still the better of the 2 designs.

As a result I tend to push people to the box if they are choosing between the 2 designs now, but the cylinder is still a great sub that cant be bettered for the money, at least here in the UK. Its not that the cylinder is a bad sub, just that IMHO the box is enough better to justify is higher price tag.

I do have plans to visit another cylinder owner in the near future, one who reports no issues with his cylinder. I'm hoping to find his sub sounds as good as my box, and a final conclusion will be possible from that.

Cheers


----------



## ironglen

Thanks for the add'l info-I have two diy sonosubs and the larger one is grill-less. Planning to build two more, also without grills/topplates:yes: Box resonances could indeed affect the sound. I'm a bit skeptical about the port chuffing, or at least why there would be a difference if all other factors are equal. Perhaps the sub could benefit from a greater gap above the baseplate? Let us know how the upcoming comparison goes:T


----------



## Moonfly

When I put my ear to the ports the port resonance sound was pretty much the same from both subs, but in the sitting position it it was less apparent with the box. One theory was that the proximity of the driver to the ports somehow helped mask this. The clacking sound from the driver was apparent on both subs as well as high levels, but again it seemed less apparent in the box. This time the theory we had was that the base plate helped amplify the sound. We tested this by holding a floor tile close to the driver on the box and the 2 subs then sounded the same. 

A couple people over at the other forum voiced concerns on the proximity of the ports to the rear of the driver on the cylinder as well, with some speculation being that this aided port turbulence compared to the alignment in the box.

I'm not slating the cylinder by any means, I just thing the box is a step up.


----------



## Kartoon2005

Does anyone have a PC13-Ultra for sale? :R


----------



## Moonfly

Actually, about 3 went up for sale in the UK forums and my friend returned his after my opinion .

TBH, I wouldnt recommend anyone sell their cylinder if they are happy with it, based purely on what I found. All rooms are different, and how a sub reacts in each is different. There are many many happy cylinder owners, so they must work very well in a lot of peoples rooms.


----------



## Kartoon2005

I'm located in Brooklyn, NY. :dumbcrazy:


----------



## bigbucks

Hi Guys, the previous pc13 ultra i had when i started this thread i have now sold, i now have a pb 13 ultra and i have to say i prefer the sound of the pb 13 ultra. Supposedly the pc and the pb have near enough the same response on pen and paper yet from my experience of now owning both of them they sound completely different. Apparently the pc version has a slightly higher spl which i'll never know as i haven't maxed out either of them, but the pb version sounds a lot tighter, more controlled, goes lower down in hz and doesn't sound bloated like the pc version. If you haven't listened or compared the two subs then you'll never know the differences but on the flip side i reckon the pc version integrates slightly better when it comes to listening to music and it also seemed more placement friendly in my listening room. I would still like to see a review of the pc13 ultra on this forum and i think its safe to say i'm not standing alone!!!


----------



## Jon Liu

Well good to know you found what you were looking for, but on paper, the PB13-Ultra beats out the PC-Ultra by about 1-2dB on output alone.

Also, I'm sure you already played with the location of your sub, but that could've attributed to the sound you were getting with the PC-Ultra.

Either way, congrats on the new PB13-Ultra!


----------



## Murrayb

I currently have a SVS 20-39PC+. Looking for a bit more bass omph and better integration with music. I find the 20-39 a bit muddy (for lack of a better word) when listening to music. Would the PC Ultra be an improvement in those areas over the 20-39? Due to space limitations, PB13 Ultra wouldn't work for me, thus the consideration of the PC13.


----------



## recruit

The Ultra driver is far superior to the PC+ variants and will most definitely be a very good upgrade over your current sub, the PB13Ultra is my favourite but if space dictates then the cylinder would be your best bet :T


----------



## Jon Liu

I agree with John. Ultra drivers have always been a nice improvement over the Plus series drivers. I'm not sure which generation Plus you have, but this current version of the Ultra is in another league in itself. If you are looking for more oomph, believe it will provide it very nicely for you. The Ultra is very musical as well. Hard hitting and fast. One of the nice things, although it doesn't necessarily work for everyone, is the ability to put the sub into 'Sealed' mode to tighten up the bass even further. Of course, this reduces output, but it's worth trying out, if you end up getting the Ultra.


----------

