# The secret behind the best 2 Subs in the world - B&W and Paradigm



## Veltinorian

Hello People,

We all know why a lot of us are here, the ideal for a subwoofer we are striving to have. The ultimate subwoofer with punchy bass with bone shacking realism and the same time the low earth quaking power with precision and clarity from moving continental plates that the earth has ever come to live through. The ultimate flat response down to 5Hz with powerfull high output. 
We know the feeling of the sound doesn’t stop by 20Hz, a lot is going on under 20Hz. That is a combination that requires a lot of technology and research. This is a task for a subwoofer which class is one of another dimension. The over 4000$ subwoofers league. 

Well like a lot of the guys in the forum, which I so much adore, have built subwoofers which have gone really low down to 12 even 10Hz (Maelstroms, LMS Ultra, etc.) but we also know the cost..., something has to give. The gigantic size and the standing waves and other problems accompanying which I am not going to refer here.

Now the best subwoofers in the world I know are:

the Bowers-Wilkins B&W DB1 reaching 15Hz at -3dB with the astonishing 116dB at only 160W in only 3.2 cubic feet enclosure. Costs around 5000 USD:
http://www.bowers-wilkins.de/Lautsprecher/Heimaudio/Subwoofer/DB1.html

and the ultimate one

Paradigm Signature SUB 2 reaching 7Hz (-3dB) with the astonishing 112 dB at 10 Hz in an apprx. 23x23x23 inch enclosure. Costs around 12.000 USD at launch:
http://www.paradigm.com/products/paradigm-reference/subwoofer/signature-series/sub-2

Both use vibration-canceling designs with opposite eliminating forces, but that is not much important.

Or this one:
http://www.paradigm.com/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=viewlink&link_id=162&Itemid=2
It starts to roll of at 9Hz in only 5.2 cubic feet box outer volume! sealed box. 

All are sealed designs.

I made a comparison with the results from Ilkka who tested a lot of subwoofers, here:
http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...hived/5748-cea-2010-standard-compilation.html

The closest is the TC LMS-5400 + 2 18" PRs 200L(7 cu feet) ported with 109 dB maximum clean RMS Power at 16Hz, and this is a powerful if not the best driver in the world...:unbelievable: What strucks me it even doesnt come close to B&W DB1 with its 116dB at 15Hz at only 160W...i dont know what to say 

As we know how the low extension is not possible for sealed designs as they roll off very quickly, for punchy bass down to 35Hz you may be lucky with a 15” or 30 Hz with an 18” or 21” Malestrom but under 25Hz it is impossible as shown by numerous simulations, also here in the forum. Physics also has limitations

And the ultimate question is how those sealed subwoofers champions achieve those results in those miniature, really miniature enclosures and on top of that all that in sealed boxes? 
What is the secret behind such extraordinary performance? Please anyone help that could be a mile stone for many of us

Yours V.


----------



## Veltinorian

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

Please anyone comment how is that incredible performance in such volumes possible


----------



## funky_waves

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

There is no secret. It is often simply a matter of measurement method, in "average" room measuring can give significantly higher outputs, and lower response curves, as well as mic distance can have a huge impact on the numbers. Ilkka's measuring was done at 2m ground plane, not indoors at 1m as is often the case.

Also often they say for example, response to "3hz" max output "130db", notice they are not saying that it can produce 130db AT 3hz, what they are often saying is that at low level it is Eq'ed to be -3db at 3hz, and the maximum output is 130db at some other frequency often around 60hz, even that does not mean that it can produce 127db at 3hz, there is something called compression that affects subwoofers, as the output goes up to the point where the subwoofer is under stress the output stops going up evenly, and eventually output can keep going up at 60hz but not at all at 3hz once it hits its 3hz limit, and that could be 20db for all you know.

Not to say these are not great subwoofers but, bottom line, you can only compare subwoofers directly when you know all the test conditions were identical, or simmilar enough conditions to calculate the differnce but even then there can be un accounted for variables.


----------



## templemaners

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

:sneeky:

You sort of answered your own question - physics has limitations.

I think you are putting in *way *too much credit into these manufacturer claims. First, can you show us where it says that "the B&W DB1 reaching 15Hz at -3dB with the astonishing 116dB at only 160W in only 3.2 cubic feet enclosure." The B&W product sheet claims a +/- 3db range from 17 to 145 Hz, but does not say at what dB level that was obtained at. I don't know if we've seen any good/detailed 3rd party testing of the the Sub2 either.

You are also a bit confused on subwoofer characteristics - most of the time, sealed subwoofers have the gentlest roll off (12 db) compared to ported or passive radiator designs (which are often 24 db or more). In fact, sealed are the best type of subwoofer to get those really low frequencies - you just need a lot of power and woofers to do it.


----------



## Veltinorian

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



funky_waves said:


> There is no secret. It is often simply a matter of measurement method, in "average" room measuring can give significantly higher outputs, and lower response curves, as well as mic distance can have a huge impact on the numbers. Ilkka's measuring was done at 2m ground plane, not indoors at 1m as is often the case.
> 
> Also often they say for example, response to "3hz" max output "130db", notice they are not saying that it can produce 130db AT 3hz, what they are often saying is that at low level it is Eq'ed to be -3db at 3hz, and the maximum output is 130db at some other frequency often around 60hz, even that does not mean that it can produce 127db at 3hz, there is something called compression that affects subwoofers, as the output goes up to the point where the subwoofer is under stress the output stops going up evenly, and eventually output can keep going up at 60hz but not at all at 3hz once it hits its 3hz limit, and that could be 20db for all you know.
> 
> Not to say these are not great subwoofers but, bottom line, you can only compare subwoofers directly when you know all the test conditions were identical, or simmilar enough conditions to calculate the differnce but even then there can be un accounted for variables.


Guys the world changes maybe it is hard to admit but in the subwoofer world some progress is made. Look all i said is based on data, measured data. Now let us look to the numbers here is the review in german language but you can see the numbers 113dB 160W: 
http://audiovision.de/Test-Archiv/Tests/2010/11/Test-B-und-W-DB1-Subwoofer-fuer-4000-Euro/Seite-2

Now we are talking here about a double 12"-sub, which startrs to roll of at 17Hz in room. We are talking about a 3.2 cubic feet outer volume enclosure and 114dB output at 160W amp. Tell me how to beat that, those dimensions and low bass extension and db levels? And the magical 120dB range, look at the Ilkka's table, come on guys how many subs can top that? The TC LMS5400 with lots lots of power even at 1m distance even at 60Hz for the DB1 as you say says a lot. The LMS-5400 is a world champion as we all know. Nevertheless it is not seen in a serial production sub











templemaners said:


> :sneeky:
> 
> You sort of answered your own question - physics has limitations.
> 
> I think you are putting in *way *too much credit into these manufacturer claims. First, can you show us where it says that "the B&W DB1 reaching 15Hz at -3dB with the astonishing 116dB at only 160W in only 3.2 cubic feet enclosure." The B&W product sheet claims a +/- 3db range from 17 to 145 Hz, but does not say at what dB level that was obtained at. I don't know if we've seen any good/detailed 3rd party testing of the the Sub2 either.
> 
> You are also a bit confused on subwoofer characteristics - most of the time, sealed subwoofers have the gentlest roll off (12 db) compared to ported or passive radiator designs (which are often 24 db or more). In fact, sealed are the best type of subwoofer to get those really low frequencies - you just need a lot of power and woofers to do it.


@templemaners
Of course i am not confused with subwoofer characteristics, i know perfectly the sealed falls slower down than the ported which falls down like from a cliff, but but that sealed starts to roll of very soon so when a ported reaches -3dB the ported is like -20dB and remains at similar lever further down as the ported has even less than that. But -20dB contributes to absolutely nothing in the sonic picture even be it present as the case with the ported is not. Look at the design database and compare the -3dB or -6dB freqs for ported and sealed for the same driver, sealed cannot compete for a low output. If you still not believe it show me a freq response or room freq response for a sealed that beats ported for the same driver when the ported is tuned correctly (at the fs res. freq of the driver).

Again guys things change.. now to your question, of course SUB2 from Paradigm is being tested -3dB in room at 7Hz ! at 7Hz 112dB and 126dB at 60Hz with 10 inch drivers, now again here is the data not in german:
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/au...eakers/paradigm-signature-sub-2-691179/review










How to beat that ? What a accomplishment is that? and we are talking not about a gigantic DIY 20 cu foot sub, we are talking about a 23x23x23 inch sub with 112dB at 7Hz and 126db at 60Hz again with a 7Hz -3dB LF-extension. Some people are pushing the limits out there. This is unbeatable and a world record for a serial production sub.

How about the other sub SUB 25 from paradigm, in room response down to 9Hz at -3dB in a 20x18x25-inch box with a 3000W RMS. Look at the size of it and compare it with all the gigantic subs you came across in your life that come close to the 10Hz mark and below. Look how narrow and compact it is, how to beat that response in that volume, how to even come close to it?










Again the ultimate question, what can be the secret behind such a world record performance


----------



## Mike P.

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

Yes, advances are being made. But your reference to Ilkka's testing is comparing apples to oranges. The stated SPL numbers from Ilkka's tests are from measurements done outdoors, the Paradigm Signature SUB 2 was tested indoors "in a typical listening room". Test a sealed TC LMS-5400 in the same environment and watch the low end numbers climb through the roof. Or test he Paradigm outdoors and watch the low end numbers fall off a cliff.


----------



## tesseract

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



Veltinorian said:


> The closest is the TC LMS-5400 + 2 18" PRs 200L(7 cu feet) ported with 109 dB maximum clean RMS Power at 16Hz, and this is a powerful if not the best driver in the world...:unbelievable: What strucks me it even doesnt come close to B&W DB1 with its 116dB at 15Hz at only 160W...i dont know what to say


Subject all of the subs to the same test methods, you will see the TC LMS-5400 slaughter the other subs in output and extension.



> As we know how the low extension is not possible for sealed designs as they roll off very quickly, for punchy bass down to 35Hz you may be lucky with a 15” or 30 Hz with an 18” or 21” Malestrom but under 25Hz it is impossible as shown by numerous simulations, also here in the forum. Physics also has limitations


Properly EQ'ed and powered sealed subs will reach well below what ported designs can. It takes a prohibitively large enclosure and port to approach the performance of sealed.


----------



## Jasonpctech

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

Don't forget most manufacturers take advantage of the *MAGIC* of exaggeration.
Let's test em ourselves and see what happens. We need samples!:yes:







At a mere $1900 you know we would all have 2 of these, at least.:rofl:


----------



## vann_d

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



Veltinorian said:


> Guys the world changes maybe it is hard to admit but in the subwoofer world some progress is made. Look all i said is based on data, measured data. Now let us look to the numbers here is the review in german language but you can see the numbers 113dB 160W:
> http://audiovision.de/Test-Archiv/Tests/2010/11/Test-B-und-W-DB1-Subwoofer-fuer-4000-Euro/Seite-2


All I see in the link is a measurement at 80 dB down to 20 Hz. I see no other meaningful measurements in the article, especially none that indicate 113 dB measured.

And what professional plots the response of a subwoofer on a chart that goes to 100kHz?


----------



## Veltinorian

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



vann_d said:


> All I see in the link is a measurement at 80 dB down to 20 Hz. I see no other meaningful measurements in the article, especially none that indicate 113 dB measured.


What about the review of the *Paradigm SUB2 with 112dB at 7Hz and 126dB at 60Hz* in 23x23x23 inch enclosure...that can not be ignored. 
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/au...eakers/paradigm-signature-sub-2-691179/review
If soeone knows something that comes close to that please comment



vann_d said:


> And what professional plots the response of a subwoofer on a chart that goes to 100kHz?


This is a logarithmic scale the impoortant 20-100Hz is quite large you will see what is going on there very well.

When you look a bit down on the same page you will see a *completely flat response down to 20Hz with a 80Hz* X-Over Setting with a maximum sound pressure level of 113dB at 28Hz and that* in a 3.2 cubic feet cube and 150W* continious RMS power









Or can that be ignored too?

Can anyone comment on the Paradigm SUB 25 with a 20x18x25-inch box reaching 9Hz with -3dB be it in room...how did they do that in that little cube









Now how large are the subs that come that close to 9Hz -3dB in room response you have seen, I know what I have seen big gigantic subs with standing waves issues and s.f...

Now the truth is sometimes difficult to admit, for me as a DIY-er as well but how long can we repress that, how long can we ignore it and not giving the objective criticism and consideration the DB1, the Paradigm SUB 25 and SUB 2 so richly deserve?
And most importantly to solve the riddle of those extraordinary subs...so the next day you can be owner of a such a sub, built by your own.


----------



## Mike P.

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



> What about the review of the *Paradigm SUB2 with 112dB at 7Hz and 126dB at 60Hz* in 23x23x23 inch enclosure...that can not be ignored.
> http://www.techradar.com/reviews/aud...-691179/review
> If someone knows something that comes close to that please comment


See post #11 and #19 in the following thread, both models so not include room gain.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...uld-you-try-do-diy-version-paradigm-sub2.html


----------



## Veltinorian

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*


















Thanks for your link Mike, i really like this but both subs SDX 10 and HiVi start to roll off at 45Hz. So my estimations were correct that if one is lucky can reach the 35Hz with a 15" or maximum 30Hz with an 18".

Now the in room response will not change the angle of that falling line rather will shift it left with 7 to 10 Hz, so the lowest freq response would be around 30-35Hz, or ....wait a minute :scratchhead: it is actually the 20Hz level now will be actually the 10Hz in room response and we have 111dB and to come equal to the plateau it should be equilized to 123dB or 12dB difference and you'll get 10Hz on a par with the 35Hz or the previous achievable without overhead 45Hz. It is feasible as long as the driver can tolerate the extra 12dB of low freq power, i see it can work...:blink: And the cone movement will be restrained cause of the sealed design..and when the driver is a good one yes, it can work even with the SDX 10 with fs 25Hz..Why bother go ported when you can...as long as the tonality of the sealed is acceptable and sounds not like chocked non breathing thing ..yes the FR down to 10Hz is possible with 4 times more power for the lowest frequencies
please comment what do you think about those 12db they should not be a problem for a high performer, it is actually 4 times power increase for the 10Hz


----------



## GranteedEV

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

Let's establish a few things:

The Paradigm Sub2

1) Uses six 10" drivers in a very small box. natural QTC is a question mark - could be .7 and it could be all the way as high as 1.5.
2) Uses around 7kW of power to add a ton of boost in order to equalize itself flat in the so-called typical room.
3) Uses Digital Signal Processing to compress it's low end output 
4) Has never been measured by a reputable source. 
5) Is sold in brick and mortar stores, to people who don't know much about low end output relative to say, the people online at HTS or at AVSForum

Is the above established?

Points 1, 2 and 3 are very important above. The Sub2 requires ridiculous amounts of boost to even have "natural" sounding response at moderate listening levels. As the output levels rise, the subwoofer's transfer function alters itself significantly. It goes from looking like a flat line down to 7hz to looking, well, probably similar to those CSS SDX-10 charts you are looking at. They can EQ it flat to 7hz at low levels, but as the output rises, the digital signal processing reduces the amount of EQ being used in order to keep the sub within its limits. That is the "magic" of a flat loudspeaker. 

Now let's compare the sub2 to the TC Sounds LMS-5400

six 10 inch drivers,
-each with 3" voice coils

we don't know the exact sd, but for example the CSS SDX-10 has 300cm^2, the TC Sounds Epic 10 has 330cm^2 and the JL10W7 has 386cm^2. Six 10 inch drivers would thus have an sd somewhere around 1800cm^2 to 2300 cm^2

vs

One 18 inch driver, with
-a 4" voice coil.
-38.1mm of xmax
-47.6mm of xmech

Now the sd of that one 18" driver is 1124cm^2 of surface area. 

In terms of volume displacement alone, using xmax as the excursion limit (which is conservative given the world class linear performance of the LMS-5400), we get about 4282.44 cm^3

So now our assumption is that the six 10" drivers can move more than 4200 cm^3 at the very least?

okay, so we need what sort of xmax? around 18 to 24mm of xmax out of each 10 inch driver depending on its SD. The SDX-10 for reference has about 18mm of xmax and the TC/JL10w7 have 23mm of xmax. so we'll give paradigm the benefit of the doubt. 24mm xmax would be the likely upper limit of what you could pull out of the drivers in the Sub2 with everything engineered to perfection. It's optimistic, and even then the chances of having the same linearity as an LMS are pretty low. 

But let's assume all of the above is in fact true. In 5.6 cu ft as with the Sub2, take a look at how

TC Epic 10
TC LMS-5400
JL 10W7s 

perform with 7000 watts of available max power. Driving each to their xmax at 20hz does not even require 7000 watts (which makes you wonder about why the Sub2 needs so much power)... respectively we needed about 3300, 3500, and 6000 watts to hit respective xmax.

If you model it... notice how similar they are down low? Almost identical excursion limited displacement give or take a few db in half-space. That effectively limits the sub2 to roughly the excursion limited output of a single sealed LMS-5400 at low frequencies give or take two-three db assuming you're not amplifier limited.

about 113-115db in half space at 20hz, about 102db in half space at 10hz and about 88db at 5hz. That means the DSP for an LMS-5400 can let it be absolutely flat down to 5hz, as long as the signal is not asking for more than 88db. as soon as power rises the curve will start to look more and more like the curve for an unequalized subwoofer. Less EQ will be used because the power at 20, 10hz, 5hz is limited to keep excursion down.

So you just paid $7000 for a subwoofer hopefully on par with an LMS-5400. It needs 7kW of power which your 15a line simply cannot provide. It is still effectively a point source monopole subwoofer prone to countless room modes and room nodes with ragged in-room response. 

Compared to that, you could have picked up two or three sealed LMS-5400s from Funkywaves if not six or eight DIY and spaced them around the room, for two to seven times the excursion limited output and a much more musical FLAT in-room response at multiple seating positions. You can squeeze a bit more low end naturally out of them with a box qtc closer to .5 to .7. Funkywaves and DIY also offer passive radiator options, which might not go as gut wrenchingly low but will give you more output down to around 15hz or so.

Better yet go with an efficient pair of infinite baffles using drivers that take advantage of the "large box" an infinite baffle provides, and you won't even need endless amplification..


----------



## Moonfly

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

I do enjoy these kinds of threads, with the theoretical DIY outputs always looking awesome. FWIW, the sub 2 is a very good sub, and not that small, at least not for us guys here in the UK. The drivers are custom built to high standards so should be very good, and they certainly do sound good at levels high enough for any UK home anyway. I do have to agree with pretty much everything GranteedEV has said though. Theoretical figures from paradigm are more selling points than rock solid bench marks. As good as the sub 2 is, there is no way I would ever pay the asking price personally. The IB I am about to install will sound better I am sure, and the entire 6 driver system will only require 200 - 300 watts max, so no power compression issues to even contemplate there.

There arent really any secrets when it comes to subs, only those with the knowledge and those with the money


----------



## Veltinorian

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

The riddle is solved. Because of you guys, it changes its FR like a chameleon...like a scary chameleon seeing a vulture flying over to it.. and as the signal rises and it sounds like a 100 dollar PA sub from 60 Hz...well with lots of dBs, which can be accomplished by a horn PA Speaker. And that for all of them...what a shame, so it ramains SVS or DIY.. I told you i have a bad feeling about the sealed enclosures :T. Cheer up, everything's good..it is good to be here 

Greets


----------



## Moonfly

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

Sealed enclosures are my preferred option, but value for money they really arent in comparison with other options. Larger cabinets lead to less colouration of the sound the driver produces as well, and given many sealed subs are aimed at keeping size minimal (more commercially viable), it can be difficult to achieve your goals if your standards are high. Personally, I have always favoured the extra cost and the sealed route to any ported efforts ive ever heard.


----------



## GranteedEV

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

if you have the money, virtually nothing will beat six to eight sealed 18 inch high excursion drivers plus EQ and natural room gain in a box that gives a natural qtc = .45 to. 6

I just think the paradigm specifically is overpriced. dollar for dollar multiples of the sealed offerings from SVS, HSU, Funkywaves, Rythmik, Seaton, Acoustic Elegance and Epik will likely wipe the floor with a single Sub2 in all its over engineered but still physics limited glory. The sub2 is closer to competing with velodyne and JL than with the above brands.


----------



## Jstslamd

I love these threads they are always so educational !!


----------



## Binary

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



Veltinorian said:


> What about the review of the *Paradigm SUB2 with 112dB at 7Hz and 126dB at 60Hz* in 23x23x23 inch enclosure...that can not be ignored.


neither can the simple phrase "in room". You do realize this factors room gain into the equation. and at low frequency room gain goes up, so if there hittin 112 db at 10hz, its because chances are theres AT LEAST 9db of room gain down there. Now 103, doesn't sound quite so hot. But that's marketing.

Ilkka's testing was outdoor, 2m ground plane, which eliminates the room gain from the measurement.

The plain and simple reason is that we are honest. And manufacturers are not. Its not nice to say, but its the truth.


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



Binary said:


> The plain and simple reason is that we are honest. And manufacturers are not. Its not nice to say, but its the truth.


It amazes me that we still read stuff like this in 2011. Some manufacturers (read: the ones on the cusp of DIY-wanna-be-business) skirt the truth. You really can't say that about B&W and Paradigm with any semblance of believability.


----------



## tesseract

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> It amazes me that we still read stuff like this in 2011. Some manufacturers (read: the ones on the cusp of DIY-wanna-be-business) skirt the truth. You really can't say that about B&W and Paradigm with any semblance of believability.


The problem with specmanship begins when you get an incomplete data set. For instance, stating a 20 Hz capability without giving the sound pressure or distortion levels.

20 Hz @ 90 dB w/greater than 10% distortion is often the reality with subs that omit this data. Not impressive at all. :unbelievable:

http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...hived/5748-cea-2010-standard-compilation.html


----------



## chashint

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> It amazes me that we still read stuff like this in 2011. Some manufacturers (read: the ones on the cusp of DIY-wanna-be-business) skirt the truth. You really can't say that about B&W and Paradigm with any semblance of believability.


Are you kidding ?
When it comes to specs on a sub woofer Paradigm is one of the worst.

http://www.paradigm.com/products/products-by-category/subwoofer/paradigm/dsp-series/dsp-3400 
Low-Frequency Extension* 19 Hz (DIN) * DIN 45 500. Indicates -3 dB in a typical listening room.

Please explain what that actually means.
And what are the dimensions of the typical listening room.


----------



## Mike P.

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

I'd love to know what it means too. Paradigm quotes DIN 45 500 in a lot of their literature yet no amount of Googling DIN 45 500 will tun up any information that defines what a "typical listening room" is.


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



chashint said:


> Are you kidding ?
> When it comes to specs on a sub woofer Paradigm is one of the worst.
> 
> http://www.paradigm.com/products/products-by-category/subwoofer/paradigm/dsp-series/dsp-3400
> Low-Frequency Extension* 19 Hz (DIN) * DIN 45 500. Indicates -3 dB in a typical listening room.
> 
> Please explain what that actually means.
> And what are the dimensions of the typical listening room.


Paradigm is also known to have one of the best testing facilities in the world when it comes to anechoic response. It seems to me that other manufacturers are forced to find other ways to test their stuff, based on the lesser resources at hand. Paradigm and B&W, among others, should not feel compelled to lower their accurate standards based what their "competition" can't do.


----------



## eugovector

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> Paradigm and B&W, among others, should not feel compelled to lower their accurate standards based what their "competition" can't do.


But they should be compelled to explain them when they don't make sense.

Bose probably has great testing facilities also, but they don't release specs. For my money, I'll take groundplane measurements done by Elemental Designs (or whoever) in a soccer field over marketing specs, or lack there of, any day.


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



eugovector said:


> But they should be compelled to explain them when they don't make sense.
> 
> Bose probably has great testing facilities also, but they don't release specs. For my money, I'll take groundplane measurements done by Elemental Designs (or whoever) in a soccer field over marketing specs, or lack there of, any day.


Visit their testing facilities and report back when you're duly educated.


----------



## eugovector

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> Visit their testing facilities and report back when you're duly educated.


So you have visit their facilities then, and that's why you have such confidence in them?


----------



## Veltinorian

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

The marketing "magic" is that those devices are incredibly equilized at low input levels and cannot sustain that frequency response at their nominal power. At high power it is reduced to what actually is the upper 20s Hz or even higher. And in addition to that it is in room response of course carefully choosen one . 

That is why it hit me how those small cabinets reach those results, i thought the technical stuff there are as honest as the people here on the DIY arena, which is simply not. Great respect to the community here, the technical exchange is so valuable..


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



eugovector said:


> So you have visit their facilities then, and that's why you have such confidence in them?


I have confidence in them because I:

1. Have personal experience with a huge array of their products, in different environments;
2. Understand the quality of their testing environments, simulating real-world as well as anechoic environments;
3. Know that test results in the middle of an open field mean squat in the real world;
4. Trust an award winning company with plenty of official, anecdotal, and professional accolades;

and on and on. I'm NOT saying they are the end-all-be-all, but to criticize their testing results, especially compared to relative upstarts, is ignorant and typical of internet brand fandom. This is borne of people that read about various products online, then report in various ways their qualities or lack thereof with little hands-on experience of sufficient duration to make these broad claims. Bose is a red herring, weak comparison that is designed to elicit an emotional response.


----------



## eugovector

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> I have confidence in them because I:
> 
> 1. Have personal experience with a huge array of their products, in different environments;
> 2. Understand the quality of their testing environments, simulating real-world as well as anechoic environments;
> 3. Know that test results in the middle of an open field mean squat in the real world;
> 4. Trust an award winning company with plenty of official, anecdotal, and professional accolades;
> 
> and on and on. I'm NOT saying they are the end-all-be-all, but to criticize their testing results, especially compared to relative upstarts, is ignorant and typical of internet brand fandom. This is borne of people that read about various products online, then report in various ways their qualities or lack thereof with little hands-on experience of sufficient duration to make these broad claims. Bose is a red herring, weak comparison that is designed to elicit an emotional response.


Actually, test results in the middle of a field is one of the only ways to achieve near anechoic response at low frequencies. When you look at the wave length of a 20HZ wave (56 ft), it's measurements taken in a room that generally mean squat. Here's a great comparison of the relative strengths and weaknesses of various techniques: http://www.audioholics.com/education/loudspeaker-basics/subwoofer-measurements

As far as brand-fandom, I'd say that's a pretty common phenomenon. But, just as it would be silly to accept meaningless specs from a well-known company whose products you own, it would be equally foolish to dismiss the specs and measurements of younger, internet only companies simply because they haven't been around as long and don't cost as much. Truth is, those relative upstarts are currently making speakers, subs, and other equipment that is running rings around "brand name" equipment at twice the price. SVS, HSU, Emotiva, Aperion, Elemental Designs...the list goes on and on.

I own JBL speakers. I love JBL speakers. They have some of the best R&D facilities in the business, arguably THE BEST if you consider the opinion of someone like Floyd Toole. That said, they have, in the past, spec'd their frequency response at -10db, a far cry from the +/- 3db that seems to be standard. And, even with the great R&D, I'd have a hard time recommending any of their subs given the cost. Even their speakers have stiff competition at the street price from both internet direct and traditional manufacturers.

Owning JBL speakers and knowing their history does not give them a free pass in my book.


----------



## eugovector

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

And as far as Bose being a red herring, how would you rate their R&D facilities?: http://www.bose.com/controller?even...=/learning/featured_stories/feat_research.jsp

Certainly, they seems to have the equipment, a PhD bearing electrical engineer as a founder, and almost 50 years of experience. By your reasoning, they should do no wrong.


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



eugovector said:


> Actually, test results in the middle of a field is one of the only ways to achieve near anechoic response at low frequencies. When you look at the wave length of a 20HZ wave (56 ft), it's measurements taken in a room that generally mean squat. Here's a great comparison of the relative strengths and weaknesses of various techniques: http://www.audioholics.com/education/loudspeaker-basics/subwoofer-measurements


Since I don't live in a field nor listen to speakers there, have to disagree. This is why once again however I'll take the advice of a company (Paradigm or anyone else) that uses real facilities that not only measure anechoically, but in a real space like where I and presumably you live, as opposed to borrowing their high school football field to make measurements.



> As far as brand-fandom, I'd say that's a pretty common phenomenon. But, just as it would be silly to accept meaningless specs from a well-known company whose products you own,


I don't own a Paradigm or B&W sub, but go on....



> it would be equally foolish to dismiss the specs and measurements of younger, internet only companies simply because they haven't been around as long and don't cost as much. Truth is, those relative upstarts are currently making speakers, subs, and other equipment that is running rings around "brand name" equipment at twice the price. SVS, HSU, Emotiva, Aperion, Elemental Designs...the list goes on and on.


Cost means nothing. Performance is the only relevant spec.



> I own JBL speakers. I love JBL speakers. They have some of the best R&D facilities in the business, arguably THE BEST if you consider the opinion of someone like Floyd Toole. That said, they have, in the past, spec'd their frequency response at -10db, a far cry from the +/- 3db that seems to be standard. And, even with the great R&D, I'd have a hard time recommending any of their subs given the cost. Even their speakers have stiff competition at the street price from both internet direct and traditional manufacturers.
> 
> Owning JBL speakers and knowing their history does not give them a free pass in my book.


I'm remaining objective here. I don't have to go to Alaska to know it's cold.


----------



## eugovector

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

What companies do you think don't use "real facilities". I mean, let's name some names. Do you consider SVS a "real" company? How about "Bose"? Who makes your cut and how is that cut determined? How do you know whose measurements are real and whose are bogus, or just presented in a way that makes them look better (1 million to 1 contrast ratio anyone?)


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



eugovector said:


> What companies do you think don't use "real facilities". I mean, let's name some names. Do you consider SVS a "real" company? How about "Bose"? Who makes your cut and how is that cut determined? How do you know whose measurements are real and whose are bogus, or just presented in a way that makes them look better (1 million to 1 contrast ratio anyone?)


In fairness, the company you mentioned does as well. In fact Harman (as I'm sure you're aware) also takes the step - or at least used to - of actually employing a significant amount of subjective tuning to things as well.

I'm not criticizing companies for taking the steps they do or don't. However, it really isn't fair or accurate to attempt to compare a known company making speakers known to be excellent performers and tested in world-class facilities to upstarts. Do these upstarts make good products? Sure, but that doesn't mean their testing methods are all of a sudden equal to or better than established companies simply because they're (sometimes) cheaper than the established brand. That's classic internet thinking, where a lower price automatically gives a pass to everything else a company does or doesn't do.

Fact is, I've read plenty of threads and engaged in many where the only reason a company catches heat is because of their internet policy. Tied to that wagon is the assumption of lower value, scammy specs, and a host of other accusations ultimately stemming from a cost issue.


----------



## eugovector

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

But just because a company tests all of this doesn't translate into a good product or spec reflective of real-world use. Bose is an excellent example: despite a fantastic R&D budget, their design goals are to make their profit margins support their marketing. Their press releases sound better than their speakers, but you wouldn't know it to read their specs, or lack there of.

Fact is, there is nothing to stop Paradigm, Harman/JBL, SVS, or Bose from claiming any spec they want, pointing towards their 20 million dollar anechoic chamber, and saying "look at our fancy room and our vast test process; we must make a better product". Nothing, that is, except the guys at Audoholics, Ilkka here at the Home Theater Shack, and a dozen other guys out there in the football fields with their microphones making sure that the manufacturer's specs will hold when their drivers hit the ragged edge of distortion and output/power handling. 

These guys deserve a lot more respect than you give them. It's guys like them, testing because they love it not because their company's R&D budget makes them rich, that ensures that guys like you have a bevy of choices for great performing gear at a good price. Without holding marketing teams accountable for accurately representing the performance of their products, we wouldn't have companies pouring money into huge research facilities to make their products perform better; they'd just be working towards making them more profitable.

The fact is that, because of football field testing of upstarts like SVS, HSU, and others, competition in the home theater space has never been more fierce and the performance per dollar ratio has never been so high. I don't know how old you are, but if you have some years under your belt, remind your self of the kind of stereo you could buy for $1000 in 1990...1980...1970. Sure, some of that is just the technology improving. But a lot of it is the DIY crowd making great sounding speakers in their basement...starting their own speaker companies...and providing competition for the big brands that hadn't had to share their sandbox before that point. These companies too, the ones who make products that perform AND test well, despite not having their own multi-million dollar test facilities, that deserve your respect.


----------



## ejbragg

diggles said:


> Since I don't live in a field nor listen to speakers there, have to disagree. This is why once again however I'll take the advice of a company (Paradigm or anyone else) that uses real facilities that not only measure anechoically, but in a real space like where I and presumably you live, as opposed to borrowing their high school football field to make measurements.


I don't mean to interrupt this (interesting) debate, but I couldn't resist!

The thing about measuring speakers in a real room, is that much of what those measurements tell you is info about the room itself. For example, given speakers without a flat spectral profile, testing them in any room would be futile, because you cannot likely tell from the measurement data, what came from the room, and what came from the speakers. Speakers wih a flat freq profile being used in the same room can reveal a much better perspective. But how do you know the speakers are providing a flat response? They would first have to be tested (and possibly adjusted) in a place where there are no returning audio reflections. An anechoic room fits that description, but so do the great outdoors. In fact, if a place can be found where there is little wind and low noise, the difference between the two is too small to be visible in most tests (at nominal levels or higher). I'd have to argue that testing speakers in a room is fine for extracting and correcting room information, but would seem to add little to the knowledge base of speaker performance, simply for the fact that every single room is going to change the reaction of the speakers you put in them. In fact, how can any company predict the dimensions, materials, and other physical properties of everyone's listening environment?

Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for those established companies that have gurus in the lab - those guys with vast knowledge that made those companies what they are. But over the years, much of what continues to sell those products must escalate beyond the mere knowlege because, let's face it: those guys need paychecks, and so do their employees. And the larger the company, the larger the cost.... Thus the marketing departments with glossy, expensive "bigger-than-life" mock-ups, and all the reputation-based arguments. These guys know how to flex their muscle and look good! They've been at it for years!

But where did those gurus come from before they helped build companies that changed the audio world? They were probably building speakers and other audio systems in their basements on a budget, and testing their stuff in some field.


----------



## GranteedEV

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

The problem with so called in room predicted measirements is that by definition they are UNpredictable.

For example, an anechoic model of my subwoofer shows that it is a good ~9db down by 20hz.

In one placement I have had either enough re enforcement / flat measured response down to 16hz, and in another placement I get little measured results below 30hz... it follows the exact anechoic rolloff. Guess which placement happens to couple best in the midbass from 40hz to 100hz.... 

And bear in mind this is a room in a basement with two walls and a floor made of thick concrete. On the other hand it's an open great room that really would take many high excursion 18" woofers and real EQ to truly 'pressurize'.

If you ask me, it's exttremely arrogant of any company to tell me what sort in room measured response to expect... unless it's something like 

10-100hz +/- 20db in room across multiple seats prior to additional subwoofers.

Maybe that is what 'DIN 45 500' means.

Sure you can attempt to EQ flat in room with advanced subs that come with a microphone and DSP.. but EQ doesn't address headroom. Your amp, and your drivers will eventually hit their limits. that might be at only 90db at 20hz in your room or it could be at 110db in your room. 

A groundplane IE 'football field' measurement is one thing - CONSISTENT. It doesn't tell you what to expect in YOUR room but it tells you much MINIMUM headroom you ought to be getting, especially below the room modal region where pressurization begins to occur rather than node/mode excitment.

My sub can ;;anechoically;; do 112db at 20hz.
Paradigm's sub can do 115db in a 'typical room'.

So then, what are they defining as a typical room? an airtight 13 x 17 x 8 concrete bunker home theater with the sub corner loaded? Wouldn't my sub do like 125db @ 20hz in such a room? I dunno. I only know what my sub will do anechoically, and functionally what other subs do anechoically means a STANDARDISED comparision.

Now if there's a standardized testing room for predicting in room response, they are obligated to tell us dimensions, damping of walls, and how airtight it is, and how the sub is loaded, and there must be MANY companies giving us this information for a valid comparision.

And even after all that, the standardized room may be absolutely nothing like my open plan basement great room or another person's lossy second floor dedicated HT with wooden walls, or another person's master bedroom.

What's especially interesting is that I can take a measurement of my sub indoors in its spot, and outdoors, and make a correction factor to show what the room does to the sound. I can actually extrapolate that to any outdoors measurement assuming identical or translatable methodology, and know exactly what response to expect in MY room!


----------



## ironglen

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



Mike P. said:


> I'd love to know what it means too. Paradigm quotes DIN 45 500 in a lot of their literature yet no amount of Googling DIN 45 500 will tun up any information that defines what a "typical listening room" is.


I just had to check in on this conversation, because when I started my HT, I figured a 12" 350watt ported sub would be perform admirably in my living room, which is roughly 1800 ft³: guess what? I now have an 18" Mal-X @14hz and dual 12"s and I get zero window rattling or house trembling like so many other members. My room seemed typical to me, but it actually opens to the rest of the house and acts like it is 15,000 ft³ with low frequencies.

Unless subs/speakers are tested in identical conditions, they cannot be compared with certainty, anyone with a legitimate research background that states otherwise is delusional, applying statistics incorrectly, or lying.


----------



## Moonfly

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

Good thread this one. 

I have to agree with the general consensus that most manufacturers specs are meaningless. With all the effort companies like THX and Dolby go to when trying to set standards for HT systems and speakers etc, its a shame they dont make manufacturers wanting to show off THX cert'ing give specs according to a set standard. I agree all measurements should be anechoic and non of these companies should really quote in room specs.

For any company to claim the title of best sub in the world is pretty arrogant IMO, as that claim would have to come with a plethora of caveats. I built a pair of 18" driver subs for a guy and returned this weekend to help him with proper system setup after he had made some changes to his room and system. I sealed them up as per my own personal preference (he agreed there was a very noticeable improvement on SQ ) so they should be a good measure of comparison against something like a Sub2, and I'll stick my neck out and say to my ears they wee better. The low end was deeper and cleaner to my ears and I just cant justify anything like the 9k asking price on any sub.


----------



## Veltinorian

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



Moonfly said:


> Good thread this one.


My self esteem rises everytime i read something like it , i'm playing i'm playing  

BTW The products from those companies and what they are realy like are brought into light. And in turn companies such as SVS, Funky waves are being established, long live the internet community. Pathetic but i couldnt help it :jiggy:


----------



## Almadacr

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



eugovector said:


> *
> Owning JBL speakers and knowing their history does not give them a free pass in my book.*


+1 nuff said , and this should be applied to any company that puts anything out in the market for us consumers .


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



eugovector said:


> But just because a company tests all of this doesn't translate into a good product or spec reflective of real-world use. Bose is an excellent example: despite a fantastic R&D budget, their design goals are to make their profit margins support their marketing. Their press releases sound better than their speakers, but you wouldn't know it to read their specs, or lack there of.


On Bose, there really is very little that we can credit them for, other than having world-class marketing skills.



> Fact is, there is nothing to stop Paradigm, Harman/JBL, SVS, or Bose from claiming any spec they want, pointing towards their 20 million dollar anechoic chamber, and saying "look at our fancy room and our vast test process; we must make a better product".


Lumping Bose in with these brands is a poor tactic. We all know there is a vase difference in not only reviews of these brands, but specs from the companies themselves and reviewers. Not sure if you did that on purpose, but it's inaccurate either way.



> Nothing, that is, except the guys at Audoholics, Ilkka here at the Home Theater Shack, and a dozen other guys out there in the football fields with their microphones making sure that the manufacturer's specs will hold when their drivers hit the ragged edge of distortion and output/power handling.


Not sure why they bother, but OK.



> These guys deserve a lot more respect than you give them. It's guys like them, testing because they love it not because their company's R&D budget makes them rich, that ensures that guys like you have a bevy of choices for great performing gear at a good price.


There seems to be a "support the people's audio company" tone in your responses, that seems to take issue with larger companies because they're larger. I think I understand why, but besides that, I won't harbor ill-will towards a company for investing in their brand and profiting because of it. Even Bose, although I personally would never own one of their products.



> Without holding marketing teams accountable for accurately representing the performance of their products, we wouldn't have companies pouring money into huge research facilities to make their products perform better; they'd just be working towards making them more profitable.


Again, you're comparing Bose, which is a technology company (not really just a speaker company), and other more reputable brands that are largely staffed by people that would never send a good product out were it not for the internet jerking their leashes. Silly idea.



> The fact is that, because of football field testing of upstarts like SVS, HSU, and others, competition in the home theater space has never been more fierce and the performance per dollar ratio has never been so high. I don't know how old you are, but if you have some years under your belt, remind your self of the kind of stereo you could buy for $1000 in 1990...1980...1970. Sure, some of that is just the technology improving. But a lot of it is the DIY crowd making great sounding speakers in their basement...starting their own speaker companies...and providing competition for the big brands that hadn't had to share their sandbox before that point. These companies too, the ones who make products that perform AND test well, despite not having their own multi-million dollar test facilities, that deserve your respect.


You're changing the argument. I never bashed the smaller brands; I defend the reputable, larger brands from those that assume their value is somehow lower for various reasons.


----------



## zero the hero

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> Not sure why they bother, but OK.


i dont know why you seem to keep missing the point that outside measurements are the only reliable way to compare subs with other subs - we dont all listen in the same exact size room so in-room measurements are fairly useless. What is it about this that you dont agree with?


----------



## phreak

If anyone in central Alberta does those open field groundplane measurements I would get my Paradigm Sub 12 tested to see how it compares to the rating (16 hz DIN 45500 -3dB in a typical listening room)


----------



## phreak

And as to the question of what is DIN 45 500 here is a quote from the Wikipedia article on "high fidelity"

"One effort to standardize the term (high fidelity) was the 1966 German Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) standard DIN 45500. DIN 45 500 approval was intended to provide audio equipment buyers with reassurance that their equipment was capable of good quality reproduction. In theory, only stereo equipment that met the standard could bear the words 'hi-fi'. This standard was well intentioned but only mildly successful; in practice, the term was widely misapplied to audio products that did not remotely approach the DIN basis specifications."

Maybe if we have someone on the forum who can read German they would have some luck finding the full technical spec from 1966


----------



## GranteedEV

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

Somehow, I suspect few of us are interested in what waas cutting edge in 1966 lddude:


----------



## Veltinorian

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

Yeah the info in wikipedia states that in 1996 that DIN 45500 was replaced with the european norm EN 61035. According to it the manufacturers who want to put "hifi" on their stereo are not obliged to include in the specs minimum requirements and performance values but rather power ratings and methods of measurement.

In short it was a good attempt to provide a quality standart but in practice widely misused by the mass production.


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



zero the hero said:


> i dont know why you seem to keep missing the point that outside measurements are the only reliable way to compare subs with other subs - we dont all listen in the same exact size room so in-room measurements are fairly useless. What is it about this that you dont agree with?


I don't miss the point. Just don't care about the results. It's an arcane way of doing things, similar to what some hobbyist would do in their backyard under similar circumstances.

Perhaps they should step up and invest in usage or construction of proper anechoic environments like real companies. Perhaps then guys like me would stop vehemently defending established brands from people talking about how their methods are "inaccurate" working against the silly faux-benchmark of favorite-son brands testing their stuff at the local HS track.


----------



## Moonfly

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> I don't miss the point. Just don't care about the results. It's an arcane way of doing things, similar to what some hobbyist would do in their backyard under similar circumstances.
> 
> Perhaps they should step up and invest in usage or construction of proper anechoic environments like real companies. Perhaps then guys like me would stop vehemently defending established brands from people talking about how their methods are "inaccurate" working against the silly faux-benchmark of favorite-son brands testing their stuff at the local HS track.


With the greatest of respect, I think you do miss the point, you just dont realise it. You need to do some serious reading up on proper testing and measurement of subs. The guy Ilkka that used to take those measurements IIRC now works for Genelec so really knows his stuff. If you think that measurement technique is archaic, I suspect you dont properly understand the measurement techniques that should be used.

What you need to realise is that specifications of products can be relayed in many different ways. There is only really one best way, but when it comes to marketing, their best way is to use the biggest numbers possible. The people that have taken the time to study and learn all about this subject can understand the specs released by these companies and put what they say into perspective. We realise the numbers quoted are theoretical based on a theoretical or 'cherry picked' set of circumstances. This isnt inherently wrong, but with every manufacturer doing this their own way, it essentially means there is no bar by which they are all releasing their own specs to, thus accurate comparisons based on these specs are impossible. 

By the looks of things, the DIN spec paradigm claim to be working to seems to be from 1966 and was never used as an across the board standardized specification technique by anyone, and furthermore was completely replaced in 1996 in Europe where the specification originated from. That in itself should make you question as to why a company would chose to use this specification today almost half a century later, and 15 years after it was 'discontinued' by the community that created it.


----------



## Moonfly

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



phreak said:


> If anyone in central Alberta does those open field groundplane measurements I would get my Paradigm Sub 12 tested to see how it compares to the rating (16 hz DIN 45500 -3dB in a typical listening room)


It may well hit that spec, but to get a full true picture of real world performance, there is a lot of information missing from this spec itself. It says nothing for distortion levels for example, unless of course we can get hold of a full DIN 45500 specification certificate. The info doesnt look as if its protected from what I can tell,so perhaps someone should request the full spec from Paradigm themselves. I think their response should tell us quite a bit from the off, which IMO would be a good place to start.


----------



## GranteedEV

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> I don't miss the point. Just don't care about the results. It's an arcane way of doing things, similar to what some hobbyist would do in their backyard under similar circumstances.


Interestingly enough, Paul Apollonio does ground plane testing for Audioholics, and he's the Cheif Engineer and Consultant for B-52 Speakers as well as associated with other big name Professional Audio companies including Radian. Illkaa was hired by Genelec, one of the BIGGEST names in professional audio, PERIOD. These are companies that have much more rigid testing and performance requirements than just making a pretty cabinet and selling it to unsuspecting consumers.

Anechoic Chambers are absolutely unnecessary and purely marketing. The main advantage of an anechoic chamber is for measuring the distortion spectra for small midrange drivers. It's funny, because I once went to a Paradigm dealer and was told that "Paradigm makes the best speakers because they've got an anechoic chamber". I then listened, and found that the speakers I were hearing were very unimpressive compared to speakers those "backyard hobbyists" have put together for a quarter of the price.



> Perhaps they should step up and invest in usage or construction of proper anechoic environments like real companies.


You're joking, right? An anechoic chamber designed to be accurate down to 20hz would need to be a 90 ft radius _sphere_ with the subwoofer suspended 90 feet from every single boundary. Beyond that it'd be totally useless because the results would be essentially identical to a ground plane test.

The real use of an anechoic chamber is its unbelivably accuracy with LOW LEVEL signals like distortion spectra at -70db, not its accuracy with power compression test and frequency response test. 



> Perhaps then guys like me would stop vehemently defending established brands from people talking about how their methods are "inaccurate" working against the silly faux-benchmark of favorite-son brands testing their stuff at the local HS track.


Marketing and dealer relations --> Established ""Brands""
Engineering and science --> Established performance.

Is marketing a bad thing? Of course not. Good performing products still need marketing to penetrate the market. But that's exactly what the bose discussion has revolved around. You're confusing marketing literature with actual engineering white papers and scientific facts.

Anechoic chambers for many purposes are marketing. Have you ever heard of Harman International, the largest known manufacturer of audio gear in the world, known for JBL, Infinity, Revel, Crown, Harman kardon, DBX, Mark Levinson, Lexicon? They have an anechoic chamber and are the world leaders in real, practical research. Yet a quick google search gives me the following:



> *Devantier and Johnny Ventura, lab manager for the Harman Consumer Group, conducted ground-plane tests on 12 speakers having a range of sizes (from a 5-in., two-way model on up to a top-of-the-line Infinity model) in the company parking lot on a Saturday. The data from the ground-plane tests, using the same instrumentation that they used with the chamber, enabled them to derive calibration curves for the chamber so they can use it to characterize the 20- to 60-Hz performance of speakers under test to within 0.5 dB.*


Sorry, but at this point you really appear to have limited knowledge of how actual engineering methodology works, and that's understandable, but enough already. Even Harman's anechoic chamber needs a calibration curve refrenced to outdoor ground plane testing below 60hz because it isn't accurate that low.


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



Moonfly said:


> With the greatest of respect, I think you do miss the point, you just dont realise it. You need to do some serious reading up on proper testing and measurement of subs. The guy Ilkka that used to take those measurements IIRC now works for Genelec so really knows his stuff. If you think that measurement technique is archaic, I suspect you dont properly understand the measurement techniques that should be used.


I simply believe - wrong or right - that it just makes more sense to attempt to use testing "paradigms" more in concert with the way people actually use products. Now, you could convince me pretty easily that anechoic chamber testing doesn't achieve that any more than testing in an open field, but the more reputable brands also use an array of testing environments that mimic the ones we live in. 



> What you need to realise is that specifications of products can be relayed in many different ways. There is only really one best way, but when it comes to marketing, their best way is to use the biggest numbers possible.


With respect, and with a thorough understanding of marketing in most aspects, it makes more sense with better brands that market to a more upscale and often more audio-educated group to print that which means more to actual users in actual environments. I understand that taking testing outside of rooms to level the playing field seems to make more sense, but I fail to see why those results, other than being interesting debate fodder, mean anything to anyone not living in a tent. Maybe I'm missing something on that front.



> By the looks of things, the DIN spec paradigm claim to be working to seems to be from 1966 and was never used as an across the board standardized specification technique by anyone, and furthermore was completely replaced in 1996 in Europe where the specification originated from. That in itself should make you question as to why a company would chose to use this specification today almost half a century later, and 15 years after it was 'discontinued' by the community that created it.


A fair question. However, most reputable brands (of which I do not include Bose, despite their fantastic sales and marketing acumen) seem to also gain favorable reviews almost universally. Now, the accuracy and honesty of the average reviewer routinely gets called into question, and many times for good reason, but I guess I don't see anything that's glaringly off by products such as Paradigm and B&W. Harman admittedly is not universally well-reviewed, but they make more products targeted at a wider demographic.

In other words, there's a reason why it's still used. Having seen the resources available to Paradigm, it would be an uphill battle for anyone to convince me that they would fail in making a product more in tune with the 1996 standard that would earn them the plaudits they get from using the older one. I think that's ultimately irrelevant and/or a matter of philosophy that would be interesting to hear.

My essential point that on the surface sounds insulting is that these companies that are effectively upstarts would use the very same resources available to Paradigm and B&W (among others) if they had them at their disposal. When the younger companies are more established, and they start using facilities like this, it would be interesting to see what the argument from supporters would be then.


----------



## GranteedEV

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> I simply believe - wrong or right - that it just makes more sense to attempt to use testing "paradigms" more in concert with the way people actually use products. Now, you could convince me pretty easily that anechoic chamber testing doesn't achieve that any more than testing in an open field, but the more reputable brands also use an array of testing environments that mimic the ones we live in.


This is impossible. Every room is vastly different in construction, and Paradigm gives no indication of what they state to be an average listening room. 



> I fail to see why those results, other than being interesting debate fodder, mean anything to anyone not living in a tent.


Simply put, there is no inflation involved an a quasi-anechoic or anechoic measurement. If I buy a sub, and I need to be able to hit 112eb at 15hz, there shouldn't be the caveat that the reason my subwoofer isn't performing to spec is because my room is unlike what paradigm specs. An anechoic measurement represents a minimum and a room unconditionally represents an unknown variable. To put unknown variables in your marketing literature and pass them off as "to-be-expected" facts is dishonest and confusing. It's akin to not having specifications at all.

It's especially bad with DSP subs like the ones Paradigm uses, because of the aformentioned digital compression algorithms. They're telling you to expect 7hz in your room. They fail to tell you 

1) How your room needs to behave to match their specification
2) at what SPL to expect 7hz
3) whether the above SPL is even adequate for us to perceive this frequency. At that point it's just an arbritrary number for the sake of marketing.



> but I guess I don't see anything that's glaringly off by products such as Paradigm and B&W.


Really now? Here are the off-axis polars of B&W's $24,000/pr 800D loudspeaker:










By all means, that's an awful polar response graph. Not only is the character of the sound changing as you shift your head and body (narrow sweet spot) but the side wall reflections are going to be extremely different from the direct response, leading to a shift away from a truly accurate timbral presentation. WHen I see polar response graphs like this, my first reaction is to steer clear of a given company.

Here's the anechoic frequency response graph of the Studio 60 v5 measured in Canada's NRC Anechoic Chamber:










The even ignoring the treble peak from 3khz to 5khz (which is a region we're especially sensitive to), there is a frightening 6db peak and dip between 700hz and 2khz - an indicator of a very poor speaker because this is probably the frequency response region our listening ability is quick to find problems in, because this is the speech discrimination region and there's no sound we're more familiar with than speech, or midrange sounds in general. A speaker I would want no part of. It's not an inconsequential high Q artifact, it's a clearly audible problem and seems to work about perfectly with how I feel paradigm speakers just sound _bad_.

The Studio 20 v3 doesn't fare much better, with 3db rises centered at 100hz and 3khz leading to a _classically _"boom n sizzle" loudspeaker:










Next we get to their budget offering, the Atom Monitor v5.0 - this one's a real disaster:










The huge ~7db bass peak around 150hz is disgusting. There appears to be zero baffle step compensation applied, so if you place these anywhere away from a wall you're really in for a shouty, timbrally incorrect midrange presentation. Bass will sound sloppy and obnoxious. There will be some hardness/edgyness around 900hz that might be perceived as a very nasal "honk" of some sort. Soundstage will be extremely "in your face" and agressive with no sense of depth. Put it near the wall to fill in the lower midrange, and the already obnoxious bass will become flat out boomy.

I'm not out to attack paradigm, and it's possible their signature series speakers aren't quite the mess their monitors and studios are, but they're speakers voiced to impress in show rooms rather than voiced to reproduce sound. And with the masses, congested bass and hot treble sell. Absense of those particular swings seen above are the sort that makes "upstarts" like Salk Sound and Aperion Verus a much better option compared to underperforming big marketing company speakers like Paradigm, Axiom, Klipsch, and Polk.



> Harman admittedly is not universally well-reviewed, but they make more products targeted at a wider demographic.


Revel and JBL Professional Monitors are widely considered some of the most accurate loudspeakers in the world. Dr. Sean Olive has indirectly indicated that in controlled blind listening tests with trained listeners, their Infinity Primus P362 speakers at under $500/pr have gotten results indicating they have superior audible accuracy to those same high end B&W speakers above. 

Harman is a company that walks the walk, plain and simple. Here is the NRC anechoic measured response graph of the $1200 Revel F12, which retails for about 65% the cost of the Studio 100:










and here is that same speakers's polar response graph.










With the two graphs above you can effectively separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to an accurate loudspeaker. The revel frequency response graph is almost picture perfect, and the polar graph is really close to an ideal polar response for a wide directivity speaker.

But accuracy/engineering isn't what sells, marketing/dealer networks are.

The Salon2, the F12, the F52, the Primus P360, the LSR 6332 - these are some of the best speakers in the world at their price point because Harman uses their tools to the full potential with solid engineering principles and it shows on the spec sheets. Not because they have the tooles. Toole. Tool. Heheheheheheh. I made a funny.

Go take a look at what a real subwoofer spec sheet looks like from a company known to have a dedication to engineering, not marketing:

http://revelspeakers.com/downloads/products/prod_55_634478838184678307_Revel_Concerta_B120.pdf

No dancing around the bush with "in room" suggestions, pure specifications that tell you a MINIMUM of what to expect, with the caveat that your room can have a positive effect on the depth of bass with respect to the spec sheet.



> Having seen the resources available to Paradigm


Resources are a tool, but they're not an indicator of performance. I can tell from just looking at the graphs above, that Paradigm engineers are either

a) incompetent with respect to making a truly good loudspeaker, despite their resources
b) swayed by the ability to make sales to unsuspecting masses, based on what their resources tell them people will BUY rather than what speakers are GOOD. In that aspect they are truly NO different from Bose.



> these companies that are effectively upstarts would use the very same resources available to Paradigm and B&W (among others) if they had them at their disposal.


Of course. And my point is that _it's irrelevant_ if the product produced with those high end tools is sub-par.

Fact is, resources are unnecessary. All the research is widely available if you want to make a speaker that is extremely accurate and transparent. Take a look at the measured on and off axis response results of this "One Man Show" upstart company:

http://philharmonicaudio.com/

The same truly applies to Subwoofers. This subwoofer:

http://funkywaves.net/catalog.cfm?item=fw_18_3

Will without a doubt, outperform the Paradigm Sub2 in any respect, no questions asked, once properly dialed into a room. It's simple physics.


----------



## Moonfly

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> I simply believe - wrong or right - that it just makes more sense to attempt to use testing "paradigms" more in concert with the way people actually use products. Now, you could convince me pretty easily that anechoic chamber testing doesn't achieve that any more than testing in an open field, but the more reputable brands also use an array of testing environments that mimic the ones we live in.


The problem is that once a sub is put in a room, how it performs changes dramatically. Even slight differences between 2 room can make a single subwoofer sound entirely different in each room. The net result is that any conclusions drawn on a product that includes a typical room, is meaningless as there is no such thing as a typical room. Even if you live in a home of identical layout to your neighbour, the fact you would have your own furnishings means the end results would be different.

When these manufacturers state a typical room, they are simply applying room gain values to the max measured anechoic output. The only reason to do this is to increase the figures they print to impress ore. Whats more, you could quote 2 subs to a given spec matching that of the paradigm published figures, and the end results be worlds apart, so those figures are slightly meaningless on their own.




> With respect, and with a thorough understanding of marketing in most aspects, it makes more sense with better brands that market to a more upscale and often more audio-educated group to print that which means more to actual users in actual environments. I understand that taking testing outside of rooms to level the playing field seems to make more sense, but I fail to see why those results, other than being interesting debate fodder, mean anything to anyone not living in a tent. Maybe I'm missing something on that front.


The results are meaningful because they tell you the raw response of the subwoofer. The tests tell you the natural performance the sub iscapable of, before a room introduces its affect. Its worth keeping in mind that room effects, while boosting max possible output, are almost always negative in that they degrade sound quality from the non articulated response of any given subwoofer. This is why we are now seeing a trend in electronic room correction systems across all fields of audio technology, and its something HTS was created to increase awareness of.





> A fair question. However, most reputable brands (of which I do not include Bose, despite their fantastic sales and marketing acumen) seem to also gain favorable reviews almost universally. Now, the accuracy and honesty of the average reviewer routinely gets called into question, and many times for good reason, but I guess I don't see anything that's glaringly off by products such as Paradigm and B&W. Harman admittedly is not universally well-reviewed, but they make more products targeted at a wider demographic.


Reviewing is almost exclusively about personal opinion. It very rarely actually includes extensive testing and the data that results. Personal opinion and preference are all in the mind of the individual and have nothing to do with performance testing. We see the same thing with cars, you get measured test data which tells you how a car will perform,then you get the reviews, in which a person will give us his view on that product.



> In other words, there's a reason why it's still used. Having seen the resources available to Paradigm, it would be an uphill battle for anyone to convince me that they would fail in making a product more in tune with the 1996 standard that would earn them the plaudits they get from using the older one. I think that's ultimately irrelevant and/or a matter of philosophy that would be interesting to hear.


Maybe its still used because it allows the company to apply a certain element of freedom in how they choose to relay stated performance, whilst at the same time given the impression of fixed reference specification with which to market. Such an idea would prove favourable if I was say, the boss of a world wide manufacturer. As for 1996, well HT systems were still pretty infantile compared to todays standards and electronic eq had still to be universally addressed. Things have moved on in the last 15 years. Do we even know if there was any change from 66 to 96 in that standard, no, but in any case it was disregarded 15 years ago by the people that created it, so why choose that methodology specifically when we have proven accurate methods freely available to even the common individual today. 



> My essential point that on the surface sounds insulting is that these companies that are effectively upstarts would use the very same resources available to Paradigm and B&W (among others) if they had them at their disposal. When the younger companies are more established, and they start using facilities like this, it would be interesting to see what the argument from supporters would be then.


Go do some research into how THX started and how they used to measure things in the beginning with companies like M&K. facilities simply bring a controlled environment into the working environment for convenience as much as anything else. There are other advantages to having a facility, like no having to deal with the wind for one. No one here is questioning the validity of such facilities, what they are trying to make you realise is that you or I,with the right equipment, can do the exact same tests ourselves in a field. The fact HK themselves have improved their own facility by calibrating it to the outside testing area should tell you something about that technique. The objective independent testing that has been done this way is a proven accurate method. 

When Ilkka did the subwoofer testing this way, he did it to uncover the data the manufacturers dont share. By doing it outside, he gave every product the exact same level playing field from which to be tested. The end result was a more complete set of data for any given product, that put the manufacturers stated specs into the proper perspective. Subs can then be directly compared to one another to truly evaluate the correct pecking order, as the saying goes. To date, not a single one of the manufacturers, to my knowledge, have contested any of the data that HTS published. That alone should say something to you.


----------



## ejbragg

Moonfly said:


> Reviewing is almost exclusively about personal opinion. It very rarely actually includes extensive testing and the data that results. Personal opinion and preference are all in the mind of the individual and have nothing to do with performance testing. We see the same thing with cars, you get measured test data which tells you how a car will perform,then you get the reviews, in which a person will give us his view on that product.


Actually, this really is a very important point, and ultimately, the only one that matters. I, for example, bought a pair of near-field studio monitors for the purpose of mixing music, which I do for hours at a time. One of the industry standards is Genelec. I had the opportunity to personally compare about 5 pairs of such speakers, the day I bought my primary monitors. Although Genelec was the pair I thought I would buy, when I heard them all with my own ears, I actually preferred Tannoys, an English brand. They sounded just as needle-accurate precise, but had a rounder, fuller, tight bottom end. They were about $1000 cheaper, as well- a bonus which only marginally mattered to me (I was fully prepared ro go with the more expensive brand if they truly sounded better).

I brought these monitor home, and took them to a field to do some tests of my own. I discovered that the frequency response curve was not perfect, although very good. The freq response curve of the Genelecs was provided on-line and looked even more impressive than the data I gathered on my new speakers (if that was an honest graph.) Nevertheless, I love my Tannoys, and have absolutely no regrets.

So although the argument if who has the best specs are relevent when it comes to companies being honest about what they have, the real point is what a person enjoys. The graps provided above for Paradigm are classic examples that I find very interesting. However, I personally would not judge speakers by this data alone. Listening for yourself is imperative. So if you like a particular brand, and believe in them due to your history with them, you should go with what your heart (and ears) say. I think we should ALL be careful about bashing any companies out there (and I repent) who have built a reputation over a period of years, despite what graphs reveal. Everyone has a right to what they want, for sure.

But about anechic chambers....

I used to have free access to an anechoic chamber at one of the most prestigious research and development organizations in existence... Purdue University. The college had 2 rooms; 1 fully anechoic chamber (sized similar to an average bedroom), and 1 extremely large semianechoic chamber. Both rooms were often hired out by surrounding companies, often along with professors' times, to do research on their products.

During my senior year, I was involved in a project to literally test the rooms themselves, because the college was considering an upgrade. Our class assignment was to find the weaknesses and strengths of the rooms and provide a proposal for an affordable upgrade. We were joined in groups and competed against one another for the best proposal, for which the college made us sign a release (they had full intentions of carrying out the upgrade, if we landed on something they wanted).

Well, we did find weaknesses. The anechoic chamber, although extremely effective, had some build-up at low frequencies; in other words, although bass traps had been constructed and were very effective, they had not been able to tweak the room to perfection. It was partly because of this reason they had built the very large room, which had a concrete floor (very reflective) and extremely thick, absobant walls and ceiling (thus "semi" anechoic). The idea was to increase the room size such that the fundamental modal response was well below the threshold of usable concern, about 2.5 Hz. There were issues with this room as well. Because it was so huge, it was virtually impossible to make it airtight, and therefore, there were some vague sound leak problems.

All of our data revealed a lot of info about the existing problems, and (at least my group) made an "A" in the class . However, nobody had come up with a truly affordable upgrade that could fix all the problems, and years later, I heard through the grapevine that the facility remained unchanged. On the other hand, those rooms are still used quite often by companies which find them quite useful for what they need.

The bottom line? Just because a facility owns an anechoic chamber does not actually give them more authority or better measurement results. In fact, our professor confessed to us that if there were a quiet grassy field in the middle if nowhere, with no wind or animal noises, that such a field would be about the closest thing to a perfect measuring environment on planet Earth. The facility is handy, merely because it offers power, temperature control, protection from wind and rain, and companies can leave their gear for many days, gathering test data as they need, without the threat of the elements intruding. So ultimately, anechoic chambers are convenient, rather than ideal.


----------



## Moonfly

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



ejbragg said:


> Actually, this really is a very important point, and ultimately, the only one that matters. I, for example, bought a pair of near-field studio monitors for the purpose of mixing music, which I do for hours at a time. One of the industry standards is Genelec. I had the opportunity to personally compare about 5 pairs of such speakers, the day I bought my primary monitors. Although Genelec was the pair I thought I would buy, when I heard them all with my own ears, I actually preferred Tannoys, an English brand. They sounded just as needle-accurate precise, but had a rounder, fuller, tight bottom end. They were about $1000 cheaper, as well- a bonus which only marginally mattered to me (I was fully prepared ro go with the more expensive brand if they truly sounded better).
> 
> I brought these monitor home, and took them to a field to do some tests of my own. I discovered that the frequency response curve was not perfect, although very good. The freq response curve of the Genelecs was provided on-line and looked even more impressive than the data I gathered on my new speakers (if that was an honest graph.) Nevertheless, I love my Tannoys, and have absolutely no regrets.
> 
> So although the argument if who has the best specs are relevent when it comes to companies being honest about what they have, the real point is what a person enjoys. The graps provided above for Paradigm are classic examples that I find very interesting. However, I personally would not judge speakers by this data alone. Listening for yourself is imperative. So if you like a particular brand, and believe in them due to your history with them, you should go with what your heart (and ears) say. I think we should ALL be careful about bashing any companies out there (and I repent) who have built a reputation over a period of years, despite what graphs reveal. Everyone has a right to what they want, for sure.


There is nothing wrong with reviewing products, its upto consumers to evaluate those reviews. People do indeed have personal tastes, and no one is disputing that. Its worth keeping in mind that speakers and subwoofers are quite different in respect of tonal character. Speakers can vary wildly in character while subwoofers have a much narrower band of individuality in comparison. Still, no one is questioning the merit of reviews, its not really our place if the reviewers are good and well respected. 

What is being highlighted here is how almost all companies play with their figures to make their products sound as good as possible. Its really nothing more than chest puffing in most cases, and we should be mindful of this.

When it comes to personal preference, HTS is one of the places were you will consistently see this point defended. No one here is saying the 2 subs in the title of this thread are bad, but what is being said is that there really is no secret, not when you come to his forum anyway :T


----------



## ejbragg

Agreed. And the most wonderful thing about this forum, for sure! I'm just attempting to prevent an argument from overextending into something ugly, with companies taking the brunt of a technical brawl


----------



## Moonfly

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

:bigsmile:

There is no brawl really. HTS is all about learning about everything we can and providing accurate information, that is our only goal here.


----------



## fusseli

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

This thread is a thing of beauty. Diggles is unknowingly representing the millions of uneducated consumers out there who would rather pull out their wallets than try to learn and understand how something works. Not that there's anything wrong with that, honestly. It drives a multi-billion dollar hifi industry and there are plenty of satisfied customers out there.

Thanks to all who have chimed in at this point :clap: the thread really fell apart and the main question was answered fairly early on. What's the secret behind top dollar big brand subs? There is no secret, just a clever room correcting DSP and vague non-standardized tests.


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



fusseli said:


> This thread is a thing of beauty. Diggles is unknowingly representing the millions of uneducated consumers out there who would rather pull out their wallets than try to learn and understand how something works.


It's always funny when Random Internet Guy asserts a higher level of education on a topic, having no idea to whom they're speaking with.

I'm more educated on the subject than I care to reveal. I'll leave it at that. I'll also say that I'm examining the issue globally, not simply on the basis of whichever various testing method someone uses to gain the favor of their target demographic. Suffice it to say, it's impossible to defend a traditional B&M brand against the throngs of supporters of internet-based businesses. It's a herd mentality, supported by price point and a faux sense of exclusivity.



> Not that there's anything wrong with that, honestly. It drives a multi-billion dollar hifi industry and there are plenty of satisfied customers out there.


I'm sure companies like B&W and Paradigm are also satisfied by the numerous awards they win for their excellent products.



> What's the secret behind top dollar big brand subs? There is no secret, just a clever room correcting DSP and vague non-standardized tests.


What's important in the non-hobbyist marketplace is hitting a certain aesthetic while providing excellent performance. Face it boys, a giant water heater in the corner is a tough sell.


----------



## fusseli

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

So what's your argument at this point? The DIY crowd can acheive as good of performance (sometimes worse - sometimes even better) for a fraction of the cost, and the aesthetics will match the level of work they are willing to put into it. Refuting that is ignorance at best.

If you're doing market research then you really are representing the consumers  Nobody ever said Paradigm and B&W are junk. They are impressive in appearance and different models are clearly designed to sound different ways to meet customer expectations. Do both things and charge a price someone's willing to pay, they will be satisfied. Hell, the company might even win an award or two. From the brands perspective, if anechoic and other honest specs were published they would probably just receive criticism from the internet and savvy DIY communities. Their customer base may or may not even understand real specs.


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



fusseli said:


> So what's your argument at this point? The DIY crowd can acheive as good of performance (sometimes worse - sometimes even better) for a fraction of the cost, and the aesthetics will match the level of work they are willing to put into it. Refuting that is ignorance at best.


Sure, and for them, that's fine. I dabble in DIY myself. The two need not be mutually exclusive.



> If you're doing market research then you really are representing the consumers  Nobody ever said Paradigm and B&W are junk. They are impressive in appearance and different models are clearly designed to sound different ways to meet customer expectations. Do both things and charge a price someone's willing to pay, they will be satisfied. Hell, the company might even win an award or two. From the brands perspective, if anechoic and other honest specs were published they would probably just receive criticism from the internet and savvy DIY communities. Their customer base may or may not even understand real specs.


The customer is concerned about a wide range of things, specs and real world performance included. Never said otherwise.

My essential point, which has gotten derailed significantly, is that it's simply folly to hammer established brands that are otherwise enjoying solid reputations, especially when the comparison is largely based on favoritism.

Nobody is bashing upstarts. I realize defense of one thing looks like an attack on something else, but that wasn't the original intent.


----------



## gorb

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

I still don't know if you understand the point of GP testing.


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



gorb said:


> I still don't know if you understand the point of GP testing.


I understand the point. Ground plane testing isn't the discussion, nor is it often relevant in actual listening spaces. I still don't know if you understand that.

See, larger more established companies understand how to make and test performance products that actually sell. Newer brands still rely on the DIY methods and those that engineers might have a hard-on for, without looking at the other side of the coin. Some may bash marketing, but selling product is the only reason why anyone makes anything outside of personal use.

I simply point to the numerous B&W speakers used in facilities like Skywalker Ranch and other venues to attempt to appeal to the fact that the testing blinders worn by DIY upstart brands does not tell the entire story. All elements are important.


----------



## gorb

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> I understand the point. Ground plane testing isn't the discussion, nor is it often relevant in actual listening spaces. I still don't know if you understand that.
> 
> See, larger more established companies understand how to make and test performance products that actually sell. Newer brands still rely on the DIY methods and those that engineers might have a hard-on for, without looking at the other side of the coin. Some may bash marketing, but selling product is the only reason why anyone makes anything outside of personal use.
> 
> I simply point to the numerous B&W speakers used in facilities like Skywalker Ranch and other venues to attempt to appeal to the fact that the testing blinders worn by DIY upstart brands does not tell the entire story. All elements are important.


It's part of the discussion and it certainly is relevant. There's nothing wrong with good marketing, but a spec that states "response down to 15Hz, max spl 120dB in a typical room" is irrelevant/useless.

Marketing like this is far more useful: http://svsound.com/products-sub-box-pb13ultra.cfm#curve


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



gorb said:


> It's part of the discussion and it certainly is relevant. There's nothing wrong with good marketing, but a spec that states "response down to 15Hz, max spl 120dB in a typical room" is irrelevant/useless.
> 
> Marketing like this is far more useful: http://svsound.com/products-sub-box-pb13ultra.cfm#curve


...Because it's SVS, right?:rolleyesno: This is the kind of thing a company like SVS has to do to assuage customers that ask "SV-who?" That's not necessary with established brands with a solid track record.

You can stick your head out the window to see if it's raining, or turn on the weather channel to see what the meteorologist has to say. Either way, it's still raining or it isn't.


----------



## Moonfly

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> It's always funny when Random Internet Guy asserts a higher level of education on a topic, having no idea to whom they're speaking with.


Yet this is exactly what you appear to be doing.



> I'm more educated on the subject than I care to reveal. I'll leave it at that.


 If you cant back such claims up, and so far you have failed to properly do so, then people are going to call into question your level of education. So far, not a single person here knows, and to compound the issue, you appear to fail to understand some of the very core fundamental measurement techniques. 




> I'll also say that I'm examining the issue globally, not simply on the basis of whichever various testing method someone uses to gain the favor of their target demographic. Suffice it to say, it's impossible to defend a traditional B&M brand against the throngs of supporters of internet-based businesses. It's a herd mentality, supported by price point and a faux sense of exclusivity.


There is no heard mentality here. You will probably find the few people here on HTS actually pushing for a more accurate standardized measuring methodology are very much in the minority. Manufactuers like to make their spec look as attractive as possible, so never use the baseline real measurements in marketing material, and actually actively refuse to share some of that 'real' data. 





> I'm sure companies like B&W and Paradigm are also satisfied by the numerous awards they win for their excellent products.


As are the marketing and advertising companies handing out those awards that rely on the revenue generated by those companies.



> What's important in the non-hobbyist marketplace is hitting a certain aesthetic while providing excellent performance. Face it boys, a giant water heater in the corner is a tough sell.


This is a typical low blow approach attempting to undermine what the community is doing. To look at that exact same point from another angle, why should someone with lots of space to spare, pay top dollar for a small subwoofer that will massively under perform the potential the space on offer has available.



> Sure, and for them, that's fine. I dabble in DIY myself. The two need not be mutually exclusive.


I would love to see some example of your DIY audio projects, if your willing to share them with the community.





> The customer is concerned about a wide range of things, specs and real world performance included. Never said otherwise.


Yet you point blank refuse, despite having the evidence presented before you, to realise this community is talking about only dealing with true measurements that are captured according to a baseline standard by which all products can be measured, and then by default properly compared by specs alone. Manufacturers massage their specs to the best of their ability, which for all intents an purposes makes distinguishing those products by their respective manufacturers specification alone, entirely impossible. I have a hard time understanding why you would back that up over a proper true spec like the GP techniques, unless of course you have some interest at the manufacturers level. As you previously stated though, you dont seem to have a desire to elaborate on exactly were your coming from, which is going to make it difficult for people to accept what your saying in light of the correct scientific information they are presenting to you.



> My essential point, which has gotten derailed significantly, is that it's simply folly to hammer established brands that are otherwise enjoying solid reputations, especially when the comparison is largely based on favoritism.


No one is hammering established brands. All we are doing here is putting into context exactly what it is they are doing. The thread title assumes there is a secret behind the two subs in question, and assumes they are the two best subs in the world. The reality is there is no secret, as we are showing you, and they most certainly arent the best two subs in the world.



> Nobody is bashing upstarts. I realize defense of one thing looks like an attack on something else, but that wasn't the original intent.


Calling them upstarts alone lends itself to the appearance of 'bashing' I can assure you, the level of knowledge and understanding around here is a little beyond the level of 'upstarts'



> I understand the point. Ground plane testing isn't the discussion, nor is it often relevant in actual listening spaces. I still don't know if you understand that.


GP testing is entirely relevant, and especially so when thinking about listening spaces, as the listening space is a complete indeterminable variable that cannot be presumed. A GP measurement tells us exactly what the performance of any given product actually is. 




> See, larger more established companies understand how to make and test performance products that actually sell. Newer brands still rely on the DIY methods and those that engineers might have a hard-on for, without looking at the other side of the coin. Some may bash marketing, but selling product is the only reason why anyone makes anything outside of personal use.


Everyone understands the restriction placed on companies that have to sell to mass markets. The whole point of DIY of companies like SVS to to think outside of that very restricted box and gain the benefits from doing so. Nothing more and nothing less. On the flip side of that one, I have built very compact subs that still outperform commercially similar product by a considerable margin and for a considerable saving. 

We arent here to bash these companies, but we know the techniques they use to sell products and see through them. For anyone with an interest in knowing about this field, we can help educate them, assuming they are willing to listen.



> I simply point to the numerous B&W speakers used in facilities like Skywalker Ranch and other venues to attempt to appeal to the fact that the testing blinders worn by DIY upstart brands does not tell the entire story. All elements are important.


I am not sure what elements you feel this community is missing, but I for one am willing to listen to anything you can teach me. Do you feel that if you dont have a dedicated facility or one kind or another, then you by default should lack acknowledgement for the knowledge you possess or the products you produce?



diggles said:


> ...Because it's SVS, right?:rolleyesno: This is the kind of thing a company like SVS has to do to assuage customers that ask "SV-who?" That's not necessary with established brands with a solid track record.
> 
> You can stick your head out the window to see if it's raining, or turn on the weather channel to see what the meteorologist has to say. Either way, it's still raining or it isn't.


Not because its SVS, its because its correct. SVS is simply receiving acknowledgement of that fact. It sounds like your allowing brand loyalty to cloud your judgement here, although I could of course be completely wrong. Your example doesnt hold true, the high end manufacturers dont give you all the facts. You could say the high end manufactures could be like the weather station thats simply says it will be sunny tomorrow, while SVS are going to the extra effort of stating what temperature. Technically speaking both ways are true, but only one is truly accurate.

A lot of the big companies shy away from being truly accurate, because they have to stick to their strict marketing and profit guidelines, which means that some where along the line compromises have to be made, and they will never disclose those. Ikkas testing did exactly this, and to use SVS as an example, they use the same techniques to show that in manufacture, they have made extra efforts not to make those compromises where possible. DIY'ers can still quite easily exceed the performance even SVS's products are capable of.


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



Moonfly said:


> Yet this is exactly what you appear to be doing.


LOL



> If you cant back such claims up, and so far you have failed to properly do so, then people are going to call into question your level of education. So far, not a single person here knows, and to compound the issue, you appear to fail to understand some of the very core fundamental measurement techniques.


As has been explained numerous times to those that choose to read rather than skim, I fully understand the concepts presented. I also understand fully the limitations of the testing methods, as they pertain to the limited usefulness to the average customer in most cases, and the limited relevance in many living spaces. 



> There is no heard mentality here.


If SVS for example measured like Paradigm and Paradigm measured like SVS, the argument would be flipped in favor of SVS regardless. Tell me I'm wrong when it comes to the average defender of ID brands.



> You will probably find the few people here on HTS actually pushing for a more accurate standardized measuring methodology are very much in the minority. Manufactuers like to make their spec look as attractive as possible, so never use the baseline real measurements in marketing material, and actually actively refuse to share some of that 'real' data.


It's a guarded approach due to competitive issues.



> As are the marketing and advertising companies handing out those awards that rely on the revenue generated by those companies.


That's largely a fallacy, presented by those that think they know more than professional reviewers and testers. The same thing happens on sports forums that always call into question what someone close to a team has to say. The insulation of the internet has this effect.



> This is a typical low blow approach attempting to undermine what the community is doing. To look at that exact same point from another angle, why should someone with lots of space to spare, pay top dollar for a small subwoofer that will massively under perform the potential the space on offer has available.


SVS doesn't make subs that look like water heaters? They're WAF adequate? Am I wrong someplace?



> I would love to see some example of your DIY audio projects, if your willing to share them with the community.


I don't need validation like so many others.



> Yet you point blank refuse, despite having the evidence presented before you, to realise this community is talking about only dealing with true measurements that are captured according to a baseline standard by which all products can be measured, and then by default properly compared by specs alone.


What evidence? All I see is evidence that if favorite brand does test A then that is the baseline all others must follow. Reading between the lines is not that difficult.



> Manufacturers massage their specs to the best of their ability, which for all intents an purposes makes distinguishing those products by their respective manufacturers specification alone, entirely impossible. I have a hard time understanding why you would back that up over a proper true spec like the GP techniques, unless of course you have some interest at the manufacturers level.


I have an interest in ensuring that the average noobie consumer looking at a potential purchase to consider the source of the data involved, and to have them understand that some companies flatly don't need to publish graph upon graph to prove what they've already proven for decades. The new guys do have to do this, to establish their validity.



> No one is hammering established brands. All we are doing here is putting into context exactly what it is they are doing. The thread title assumes there is a secret behind the two subs in question, and assumes they are the two best subs in the world. The reality is there is no secret, as we are showing you, and they most certainly arent the best two subs in the world.


At the consumer or DIY level? At the established trusted and proven brand or hope and pray brand level? Which game are we playing?



> Calling them upstarts alone lends itself to the appearance of 'bashing' I can assure you, the level of knowledge and understanding around here is a little beyond the level of 'upstarts'


You're confusing the DIY community with SVS and other brands still in the proving stages. While on the one hand I see folks questioning the veracity of established brands using established testing protocols, I don't see people going "man, that cardboard tube wrapped in blackout fabric sure looks hideous."



> GP testing is entirely relevant, and especially so when thinking about listening spaces, as the listening space is a complete indeterminable variable that cannot be presumed. A GP measurement tells us exactly what the performance of any given product actually is.


Running a car flat out on a track doesn't tell you what it feels like when you're taking it to the store or running the kids to school. That's the difference. Smarter established brands tailor output and design goals to meet the needs of the consumer. Comparisons in an open field are like running cars in a test in a manner that no one drives. 



> Everyone understands the restriction placed on companies that have to sell to mass markets. The whole point of DIY of companies like SVS to to think outside of that very restricted box and gain the benefits from doing so.


And sell to a very small market in the process.



> On the flip side of that one, I have built very compact subs that still outperform commercially similar product by a considerable margin and for a considerable saving.


And yet, you're clearly using the commercial designs as a design baseline.:scratch: 



> We aren't here to bash these companies, but we know the techniques they use to sell products and see through them.


No, you're fitting your perceptions into your belief inclinations.



> Do you feel that if you dont have a dedicated facility or one kind or another, then you by default should lack acknowledgement for the knowledge you possess or the products you produce?


Without proper facilities testing and reflecting real-world usage, all I would be doing is building something I think is cool.


----------



## GranteedEV

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



> You can stick your head out the window to see if it's raining, or turn on the weather channel to see what the meteorologist has to say. Either way, it's still raining or it isn't.


except the weather channel will tell you if it's an upcoming category 1 hurricane and to evacuate AsAP with all your valuables, while sticking your head out the window will tell you.... it's raining.


----------



## xyrium

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

Diggles, no one can understand what you're crying about. The things you've stated are either obvious, or complete conjecture. Regardless, we all know (or should) that when marketing meets lab results, those results are no longer scientifically viable. Companies like B&W, Harman, Paradigm, and even Bose may all have fantastic R&D facilities. However, they all probably have fantastic marketing departments as well, and the latter is on display with the B&W and Paradigm subs in my opinion.


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



xyrium said:


> Diggles, no one can understand what you're crying about.


Nobody's "crying" about anything. Having said that, it is frustrating to attempt to change the opinion of mass groupthink.



> The things you've stated are either obvious, or complete conjecture.


They're conjecture if you don't know any better. Some people resist education; interesting internet phenomenon.



> Regardless, we all know (or should) that when marketing meets lab results, those results are no longer scientifically viable. Companies like B&W, Harman, Paradigm, and even Bose may all have fantastic R&D facilities. However, they all probably have fantastic marketing departments as well, and the latter is on display with the B&W and Paradigm subs in my opinion.


You don't understand marketing enough to understand where it dovetails, but that's OK.


----------



## GranteedEV

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> Having said that, it is frustrating to attempt to change the opinion of mass groupthink.


Not really, if you've got actual facts and engineering information to support what you're trying to convince people;  not awards. <-- see link for what I think of awards.


----------



## Moonfly

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> As has been explained numerous times to those that choose to read rather than skim, I fully understand the concepts presented. I also understand fully the limitations of the testing methods, as they pertain to the limited usefulness to the average customer in most cases, and the limited relevance in many living spaces.
> 
> 
> 
> If SVS for example measured like Paradigm and Paradigm measured like SVS, the argument would be flipped in favor of SVS regardless. Tell me I'm wrong when it comes to the average defender of ID brands.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a guarded approach due to competitive issues.
> 
> 
> 
> That's largely a fallacy, presented by those that think they know more than professional reviewers and testers. The same thing happens on sports forums that always call into question what someone close to a team has to say. The insulation of the internet has this effect.
> 
> 
> 
> SVS doesn't make subs that look like water heaters? They're WAF adequate? Am I wrong someplace?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need validation like so many others.
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence? All I see is evidence that if favorite brand does test A then that is the baseline all others must follow. Reading between the lines is not that difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> I have an interest in ensuring that the average noobie consumer looking at a potential purchase to consider the source of the data involved, and to have them understand that some companies flatly don't need to publish graph upon graph to prove what they've already proven for decades. The new guys do have to do this, to establish their validity.
> 
> 
> 
> At the consumer or DIY level? At the established trusted and proven brand or hope and pray brand level? Which game are we playing?
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing the DIY community with SVS and other brands still in the proving stages. While on the one hand I see folks questioning the veracity of established brands using established testing protocols, I don't see people going "man, that cardboard tube wrapped in blackout fabric sure looks hideous."
> 
> 
> 
> Running a car flat out on a track doesn't tell you what it feels like when you're taking it to the store or running the kids to school. That's the difference. Smarter established brands tailor output and design goals to meet the needs of the consumer. Comparisons in an open field are like running cars in a test in a manner that no one drives.
> 
> 
> 
> And sell to a very small market in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, you're clearly using the commercial designs as a design baseline.:scratch:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're fitting your perceptions into your belief inclinations.
> 
> 
> 
> Without proper facilities testing and reflecting real-world usage, all I would be doing is building something I think is cool.


I'm sorry, but everything your saying is just arguing for argument sake. You dispute proven measurement methods and offer nothing in return. Your view is pretty obvious and there is little point in continuing this discussion as you are not interesting in learning. You state your well aware of everything we have stated but still dispute it as a method by which things should be measured. Your either hear just to argue for the sake of it, or dont get the technique presented before you. Even all the big companies you keep name dropping dont disagree with what you are being told, but your unwilling to accept any of it.

This thread should get back on topic now, as enough time has been spent with this.


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



xyrium said:


> Dribbles, obviously I'm only perpetuating this thread in order to allow you to continue embarrassing yourself in front of everyone. It builds character. You seem like a nice, but frustrated kid. Perhaps you've been lied to a lot during your formative years; by your parents, your friends, maybe even one of your pets. I understand that you're lonely and it seems like the entire world is closing in on you. Being in high school can be a difficult time for kids. You have a lot of planning to do for college, and onward. In an uncertain economy, all of your plans for the future may have been altered.
> 
> However, I have great news. We're here to be objective and love you for who you are. It's going to be ok, really.


You post things like this, and claim I'm embarrassing myself?

You're a customer, on the outside looking in. Deal with it.


----------



## eugovector

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> You're a customer, on the outside looking in. Deal with it.


So, you are affiliated with a Home Theater company then?


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



eugovector said:


> So, you are affiliated with a Home Theater company then?


Negative. Although, that shouldn't matter either way.

I guess my vitriolic point is that you, as someone not in the business, are not exposed to the same reasoning and logical strategies employed by these businesses.

It may surprise some of you to note the quantity of enthusiasts that populate these organizations. This is not the exclusive province of DIY-cum-upstart speaker builder manufacturer. I think these folks would be profoundly insulted by the sentiment that their decisions are fueled solely by their marketing departments.


----------



## eugovector

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

I guess I was just confused because, if you're not affiliated with a company, wouldn't you also, by your own reasoning, be a clueless outside, a "customer" as you put it, looking in?

I've read several new threads this week where "major brand" speakers, including Paradigm, have been suggested. They've even been reviewed by members of our staff. But that doesn't mean that their specs quoting in-room response aren't meaningless without accompanying anechoic measurements for all the reasons all the people posting in this thread have tried to get through to you.

We have tremendous respect for those building the speakers at Paradigm and others. We don't have a much respect for the marketing departments putting out meaningless numbers.


----------



## GranteedEV

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> as someone not in the business, are not exposed to the same reasoning and logical strategies employed by these businesses.


Indeed. All i'm exposed to is the product, and its performance is not up to par for what I'm expected to pay. I don't understand the reasoning that companies like Bose et al have for what they sell or how they choose to convince people to buy it and get their names into every household - all I understand is that the lack the objective performance to qualify as a strong performer at its price point. That's all I as a consumer can understand.



> I think these folks would be profoundly insulted by the sentiment that their decisions are fueled solely by their marketing departments.


Insulted? If I were them, I would be embarrassed to sell a speaker with measurements like the ones shown above, at anything other than a bargain basement white van price.


----------



## xyrium

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

BTW Velti, I believe the BW uses 1000W output from the amp, while the amp only requires 150-160W input power. However, as another poster indicated, multiple and less expensive subs would probably outperform just one of these given the room modes/nodes characteristics of the listening space.

Then again, that's really not what you're saying here, but I do believe a product like this has exceeded the point of diminishing returns.

Naturally, it's the lack of a true testing standard that product literature suffers from. A manufacturer can put any numbers on their brochures and it will never be an apples to apples comparo to a competing product.


----------



## lcaillo

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> Negative. Although, that shouldn't matter either way.
> 
> I guess my vitriolic point is that you, as someone not in the business, are not exposed to the same reasoning and logical strategies employed by these businesses.
> 
> It may surprise some of you to note the quantity of enthusiasts that populate these organizations. This is not the exclusive province of DIY-cum-upstart speaker builder manufacturer. I think these folks would be profoundly insulted by the sentiment that their decisions are fueled solely by their marketing departments.


Having been in the business for about three decades, I find no reason to assume that anyone outside is necessarily any less rigorous in evaluation or reasoning. I would also not defend the design of any of the major vendors as based primarily upon sound engineering. The personal bias of designers, the desire to have a unique "story", and the marketability of the product relative to the competition drives product development far more than engineering in most cases.

I must admonish all to be very careful about vitriol and personal attacks. Some of the posts in this thread are pushing the limits of what will be allowed and the thread will be monitored very closely. I suggest that all read the rules very carefully and be sure that your posting is in the spirit of sharing opinion and fact cordially and with respect. If you do not feel that you can be respectful of another, do not post. If you have an issue with the manner in which another posts, report the post and allow moderators and admins to deal with it.

Raise the bar on the discourse or the boom will be lowered.:foottap:


----------



## ironglen

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

Thought I'd check in again to see what 'secrets' have been revealed...oops, there aren't any :heehee:


----------



## phreak

In the first few pages of this thread I learned a lot about testing methods and how to read specs to know what is not being reported. Since then I have been reading for the amusement.


----------



## Jungle Jack

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

Hello,
Personally, I believe to get into DIY and the Nuts and Bolts of Subwoofer Design and Testing Methodology is when most find their preconceived notions are brought into the light. Many start with perhaps a Paradigm or B&W Subwoofer and begin to ponder the yonder.... Regardless, this is very much a whatever floats your Boat won't sink mine kind of Forum. In truth, this Thread is somewhat of an aberration, but some very salient points have been brought up.

As this Thread is so meandering I am not even sure what Subwoofers you are using and or have been exposed to? Regardless, when Members are working on building an HT on a budget and are strictly concerned with Sound Quality and not Brand Name, I know I have not once recommended either a Paradigm or a B&W Subwoofer. Rather, it is almost always HSU, SVS, eD, Epik, Seaton (personal most impressive non DIY Subwoofer I have ever listened to) and other ID Companies. Needless to say, value can be even more maximized if interested in DIY, but many do not have the time or inclination to take on such things.

I just hope that perhaps you have had the opportunity to listen to some of the Internet Direct Subwoofers out there. I have had an opportunity to listen to all the Brands I have listed and the value to performance ratio is so beyond the thrall that I have not the words to convey just how great their offerings are.


----------



## diggles

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> Personally, I believe to get into DIY and the Nuts and Bolts of Subwoofer Design and Testing Methodology is when most find their preconceived notions are brought into the light. Many start with perhaps a Paradigm or B&W Subwoofer and begin to ponder the yonder.... Regardless, this is very much a whatever floats your Boat won't sink mine kind of Forum. In truth, this Thread is somewhat of an aberration, but some very salient points have been brought up.


Important points IMO have been brought up on both sides. It's important to note that often, the DIY/"upstart" market and the market gravitating towards established brands are equally important. In fact, the two rarely converge and are not, therefore, mutually exclusive.



> As this Thread is so meandering I am not even sure what Subwoofers you are using and or have been exposed to? Regardless, when Members are working on building an HT on a budget and are strictly concerned with Sound Quality and not Brand Name, I know I have not once recommended either a Paradigm or a B&W Subwoofer. Rather, it is almost always HSU, SVS, eD, Epik, Seaton (personal most impressive non DIY Subwoofer I have ever listened to) and other ID Companies. Needless to say, value can be even more maximized if interested in DIY, but many do not have the time or inclination to take on such things.


Everything from Genelec to JL (home), Paradigm, B&W, Boston Acoustics, and a slew of others.

And yes, DIY is the path to value. Once again however, that should not incriminate established brands that choose to test and market differently than those brands that have achieved so much favor.



> I just hope that perhaps you have had the opportunity to listen to some of the Internet Direct Subwoofers out there. I have had an opportunity to listen to all the Brands I have listed and the value to performance ratio is so beyond the thrall that I have not the words to convey just how great their offerings are.


I'll delve into those brands more as time and budget allow. But again, don't confuse my defense of established brands with an attack on "newer" companies. All I've ever stated is that all companies would probably use similar facilities and techniques if company budgets allowed and those resources were otherwise available. That's IMO an intellectually honest statement that calls into question the blind defense of the techniques used by those that currently do not have access. The point has been conceded in fact some time ago.

I'm done with this. All I wanted was to make my point, but attacks against my education, experience, and personal veracity cause me to move to threads where I can help rather than argue. It's not why I came here.


----------



## mechman

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*

*Last warning!! Keep the personal attacks off of this site!* Personal attacks have been deleted.

*Home Theater Shack Rules* - become familiar with them. Especially this:



> *Please be polite, courteous and respectful of other members, as well as all products and services discussed. There is no need to be condescending or overly critical, not everyone will be as smart as the next person. If you can help, please do so, but remember, we all start learning somewhere and none of us are perfect. If you are the home theater, audio or video aficionado king daddy audiophile, we are glad to have you around, but please be humble and considerate to those of less fortunate knowledge. If you call a member dumb, stupid or an idiot (or anything resembling those) you will be on your way to being banned. Something to remember is unless we are the smartest human being on the planet, there is always going to be someone smarter than us... and we are always going to be "less" smart than at least a few others. Therefore, if you just absolutely must call someone stupid, consider looking in the mirror and go at it all you want... but keep it off this forum.*


If someone makes a discourteous remark towards you, report it. Do *not* reply to it. That is *OUR* job.


----------



## Moonfly

*Re: THE SECRET BEHIND the BEST 2 Subs in The WORLD - B&W and Paradigm*



diggles said:


> Important points IMO have been brought up on both sides. It's important to note that often, the DIY/"upstart" market and the market gravitating towards established brands are equally important. In fact, the two rarely converge and are not, therefore, mutually exclusive


Again, nobody is criticising the products the 'established' brands make, they have simply been put into perspective, as well have their marketing specs.




> And yes, DIY is the path to value. Once again however, that should not incriminate established brands that choose to test and market differently than those brands that have achieved so much favor.


The testing is all done in exactly the same way, with only the location being a variable. The anechoic chamber or outside GP methods seek to achieve the same goals, and pretty much do exactly that.




> I'll delve into those brands more as time and budget allow. But again, don't confuse my defense of established brands with an attack on "newer" companies. All I've ever stated is that all companies would probably use similar facilities and techniques if company budgets allowed and those resources were otherwise available. That's IMO an intellectually honest statement that calls into question the blind defense of the techniques used by those that currently do not have access. The point has been conceded in fact some time ago.


As I say, the testing methods are exactly the same. The results of those tests are the same. The difference is how that data is shared out and marketed afterwards. Most of the established brands withhold a lot of the most relevant data as it puts their published specs into perspective better, this is something they dont want as it begins to show exactly what your getting for your money compared with other companies.

To cherry pick an established brand that doesnt selectively hide data though, take a look at Genelec, where Ilkka himself now resides :T



> I'm done with this. All I wanted was to make my point, but attacks against my education, experience, and personal veracity cause me to move to threads where I can help rather than argue. It's not why I came here.


Perhaps I could encourage you to share with us some more specific detail about your education. So far you have been unwilling to elaborate, which breeds scepticism. I am happy to accept your opinion, every member here is entitled to that, but being un-accepting of the data we have presented before you, data which is known the world over to be tried tested and accurate, causes some confusion.

No one here wishes to have argument, this is not what what HTS is about and we wont let it happen, but discussion is not discouraged, thats why the forum exists. I hope you dont feel targeted, because this certainly isnt the goal and not behaviour we will allow, but you may have to accept opinion sometimes leads to disagreement that simply has to be accepted.


----------



## Geo1

Interesting thread. I actually think that Diggles is one of the few who actually does get it because he hasnt permitted the forest to blind his view of the trees. Numbers are just that numbers. They are used by both established companies and upstarts to promote their products and makes claims of superiority even when in real world audio situations those numbers may not mean a hill of beans.

Like Diggles I could personally care less what fancy schmancy numbers were generated or measured on a football field. Just like I could care less how well an Leonard 38H casts in a vacumn environment, because I dont plan on seeking trout in a vacumn. Some will argue that the numbers do matter and in a sense they do, but they certaily do not gurantee audio success by any mean in a real world listening environment. 

I have an SVS pci water cooler sub which I love. I bought it because I had read many good reviews about it, and the design seemed to make sense. I have had it for 5 years and it rocks, but I couldnt tell you what any of its so called numbers are, nor do I care. All that matters is that I like the way it sounds. I have it paired with Paradigm Studio 2's, 4's and center channel. I love the way the Paradigms sound, best sounding speakers I have ever heard, and again I could care less about what their lab numbers indicate, whatnthe numbers are in a chamber, a birds nest or Giants Stadium. All I care about is how they sound where Im playing them and the truth is numbers dont always tell the whole story or even most of the story, despite what the technogeeks 

A few years back I bought an Outlaw multi channel amp based upon its reported "great numbers". Hooked it up, played it for a few months and dumped it on ebay. Why? Simple, because compared to my Parasound I truly thought it sounded terrible despite the marvelous, superior looking bench test numbers. Perfet example IMO of numbers not meaning squat when it comes to real world performance. And no, Im not claiming mybexperience is fact for anyone, but myself. However, I have seen this numbers game played out with other components before enough times to know theres often much more to the end result of hiw the product sounds than simply summing up its benchmark numbers regardless of how, or where or by whom they were measured.

I dont know what Paradigm does to test their products or subs, but I do know this: they test their products, and the upstarts test their products. They market their products, and the upstarts do the same. In the end what it comes down to is how it sounds, not what numbers are indicated in a gazillion different charts, graphs or what a microphone on a football field picked up measured. Im paying for audio, not numbers or hard quantities. Numbers are used by ALL firms to market their products because for one they are easy to manipulate and use to emphasize supposed superiority. Its why carbon fiber bike makers love to market the weight of their frame in grams, NUMBERS. Because numbers are an easy sell to the masses. Of course their numbers really dont tell you if it rides like a brick surfboard or descends with virtually no stability.

People may not be happy with Paradigms reported sub specs, and maybe they are bogus. Me personally, I could care less about their specs, as their real world sound quality has been proven for a long time. Ill take real world sonic evidence to my ear and the ears of many many others over a bunch of spec numbers or wave charts 7 days a week. My money spent is buying audio quality, not numbers, and audio quality cant be quantified like a simple mathematical formula despite the geeks desires to make it all about numbers, charts, graphs, etc...


----------



## lcaillo

It seems to me that rather than rejecting the use of measurement, if one feels that measurements do not represent sound quality, it would be more productive to explore where the deficiencies are in the specs. Specifications are a starting point for people to make informed buying decisions. In the case of subs, where room response in a showroom make listening comparisons very difficult, they can be of even greater value. After all, you made a buying decision based upon information that did not represent your experience. Wouldn't it be better to discover what it was that made the amp sound inadequate to you?

There are many who would assume that we know all that we need to know about measuring sound quality. I would disagree with that view and believe that we need better ways of quantifying sound. Subs are an area where the existing measurements actually can be very informative. The context of the measurements, however, can vary, along with the choice of test results to publish. We will never change the desire of vendors to market their product in the most appealing light possible. Nor will we eliminate the biases that cause fans of a particular product to see only those things that support their view and ignore the rest.

I understand, use, and respect the available measurement technology and know how to use it in context. Maybe that makes me a "technogeek" or a "geek" in your mind. That is fine. Just be careful about how you characterize people with a view different than your own. Others may take these comments more personally. This thread required action by moderators due to personal attacks. We won't go there again.


----------



## phreak

I would agree that the numbers are completely unimportant and the only thing that matters is how I like the sound of the equipment when it is playing in my room. But I have a problem. I do not have the option to personally evaluate all available gear in my house. Nor do I want to. What I need is some way quickly compare products without paying to have them shipped to my house. If only there was some objective method I could use to separate the wheat from the chaff? If everyone had a perfect knowledge of acoustics (and psychoacoustics) and if all manufacturers were willing to be perfectly transparent, the spec sheet alone would be enough to dictate exactly which equipment anyone/everyone should buy, making this hobby a very boring place indeed. When I did the majority of my speaker selection/analysis I used the common subjective method of going to a bunch of stores, listing to a bunch of speakers, and comparing what I heard to the price tag. I was very lucky in that the brand/model I was most quickly drawn to was available at several stores over my rather large shopping area. Because I was able to listen to them in 4 different environments and their value impressed me in each one, I presumed it would impress me in my room. I bought Paradigm based on that subjective experience. It would be nice to have numbers to "prove" that I made the right choice. The numbers I use is the ratio of smiles on my friends faces to dollars I spent. 
In a perfect world, the spec sheet (and price) would be "the" tool you need to know that you are making the right choice. In our less than perfect world the spec sheet, if properly interpreted, is "a" tool to help you not make the wrong choice.


----------



## lcaillo

Well said. Understanding the meaning of measurements and how they relate to sound quality is the best way to learn how to make better use of these "tools." I know of no one who has done more toward that end than John, with the design and support of REW. More people know more about their systems and how measurements can be meaningful (and not) that ever would have without his contribution.


----------



## J&D

Interesting read as I had not visited this thread before. I agree that a standard set of specifications should be developed and adhered to but I doubt many established brands would adopt the publication of those specifications. 

There will always be a cross section of people that would rather just buy something that makes them happy or impresses their friends and family rather than something that truly delivers high price/performance. Many use purchase price alone as an indicator of quality and I can tell you first hand that I have many friends who know I am into HT and love to tell me how much their latest piece of gear cost or how proud they are of the status and cache a well known name in the industry brings to their system. Established audio brands make profits on this behavior and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that from my perspective unless taken to the extremes.

My own personal journey in audio and HT have followed this path. I started out buying what I perceived to be the best that I could afford based mostly on anecdotal information, reviewer opinion and manufacturers published specifications. The second step was to become educated and learn how things actually work while becoming as familiar as possible with what "good" really sounds like and how standardized measurements can establish a baseline for predicting and achieving "good." The next step was to assemble products that met my criteria while providing a high level of price/performance as I do not have an unlimited budget but do have a couple of other things going on my life that limit this budget like a family, an aversion to debt and other hobbies that I like to persue and focus on.

Maybe the single most important part of my own journey and something that others can take away from that journey is putting some real time and effort into learning what "good" sounds like. What you may initially think sounds "good" to your ears could be something that is far from "good." As stated earlier in this post "boomy" bass and "sparkly" highs may make a great first impression but that is about as far as it goes.


----------



## chashint

Geo1 said:


> Interesting thread. I actually think that Diggles is one of the few who actually does get it ... Like Diggles I could personally care less what fancy schmancy numbers were generated or measured ...


While I disagree with your opinion I support your right to have it and make your purchases accordingly.
I fully support mandated measurement standards for all electronic equipment including speakers.
If any manufacturer desires to go above and beyond those standards they are of course free to do so as long as the mandated measurements were clearly published.
For the record I would love to have either one of the two subs that are the subject of this thread. But the way the specs are published on either one is absurd and to anyone even remotely in the know about such things smell like week old fish.
They should either publish the real numbers or take a page from the Bose manual and publish none at all.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
Geo1, welcome to HTS. Phreak, I really enjoyed reading your post.
Upon reading the title of this thread when it was posted, I truly did wince as it was hard for me not to see this going off the rails. I honestly believe we as a Staff bent over backwards to keep this thread alive while still being in keeping to what HTS is all about.

I still do believe that sometimes there are folks who just want to start a debate to get attention and to argue for arguments sake. That being said, we are truly blessed at HTS that as I wrote back then that the tenor of this thread was truly an aberration while also noting that many interesting points of view were shared. I can only hope moving forward that this discussion can continue in a positive light.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## GranteedEV

Since this thread's been bumped, and the Paradigm Sub2 has since been measured, I thought it'd be interesting to post them:










96db @ 10hz outdoors is certainly a shift from the claimed 112db @ 10hz in-room. While someone like Ed Mullen can probably verify or correct me on whether Josh Ricci's measurements are apples to apples a comparision to Ilkka's measurements, here is the TC Sounds LMS-5400:










Bare in mind that the LMS-5400 does not have any fancy limiting algorithms in place, hence why higher level sweeps were not taken once the system starts to compress the very low frequencies.


----------



## phreak

GranteedEV said:


> Since this thread's been bumped, and the Paradigm Sub2 has since been measured, I thought it'd be interesting to post them:
> 
> 96db @ 10hz outdoors is certainly a shift from the claimed 112db @ 10hz in-room. While someone like Ed Mullen can probably verify or correct me on whether Josh Ricci's measurements are apples to apples a comparision to Ilkka's measurements, here is the TC Sounds LMS-5400:
> 
> Bare in mind that the LMS-5400 does not have any fancy limiting algorithms in place, hence why higher level sweeps were not taken once the system starts to compress the very low frequencies.


Just out of curiosity GranteedEV, were these measurements done with or without Paradigm PBK used to flatten the response? And connected to 120v or 240v line?


----------



## popalock

GranteedEV said:


> Since this thread's been bumped, and the Paradigm Sub2 has since been measured, I thought it'd be interesting to post them:
> 
> 96db @ 10hz outdoors is certainly a shift from the claimed 112db @ 10hz in-room. While someone like Ed Mullen can probably verify or correct me on whether Josh Ricci's measurements are apples to apples a comparision to Ilkka's measurements, here is the TC Sounds LMS-5400:
> 
> Bare in mind that the LMS-5400 does not have any fancy limiting algorithms in place, hence why higher level sweeps were not taken once the system starts to compress the very low frequencies.


I just read this entire thread and was kinda disappointed in this post. I feel like there was SOOO much back and forth in regards to measurements and this single post lays it out clear as day... Measurements in the same environment tell the story that needs to be told. Bottomline...


----------



## Diamonddelts

I just can't believe threads like these are still being created by those who refuse to do their own research. These overpriced so called super subs from high end brick and mortar companies that offer mediocre performance(by today's sub performance standards) in a ultra small package. Equipment trying to defy the laws of physics for WAF will never EVER be in the league of World's Best Sub.


----------



## popalock

Diamonddelts said:


> I just can't believe threads like these are still being created by those who refuse to do their own research. These overpriced so called super subs from high end brick and mortar companies that offer mediocre performance(by today's sub performance standards) in a ultra small package. Equipment trying to defy the laws of physics for WAF will never EVER be in the league of World's Best Sub.


Yeah, I fell into the hype when I took the dive in buying (what I thought at the time was) my first really good sub. I paid $1,700 for a Definitive Technology Supercube Reference. I mean, it was a "WAF" approved small package with decent output above 20Hz, but it gets no where near published specs. They say hindsight is 20/20 and if I knew then what I know now, I would have went DIY as I am doing now for a lot less money and better all around performance.

GP testing between the LMS Ultra vs the SUB 2 put to light the differences between one of the most expensive commercial subs in the world vs. a fairly expensive ($1,000) DIY solution. Throw in the amp, sub eq management (SMS-1 or equivalent) if necessary and you still have a viable alternative to the SUB 2 for 1/6 the price and (BTW) roughly the same foot print as the SUB 2.

The only comment I would make about GP testing of the SUB 2 is that it's tri-directional firing design would seem to yeild higher room gain than the single front firing LMS. With that said, as much of an advocate I am of GP testing, when one starts to throw in other factors (such as active side firing subs) it makes me question the validity of GP testing as well. 

Still, I would put the two Ultras I am building over the next few months against a SUB 2 anyway of the week. Everything will end up costing me 1/4th the price of a SUB 2. 

If I decided to drop $12K in the sub department I would get 8 LMS Ultra's paired with 4 LG Clones. One of the guys I follow on AVS (a lot of the DIYers may know) has the equipment above and I believe he is 130db flat down to 10Hz... Roughly same price as the SUB 2... LOL.


----------



## Sonnie

Diamonddelts said:


> I just can't believe threads like these are still being created by those who refuse to do their own research.


I don't think he refused to do his research... he just researched the wrong comparison standards. Either way, we have all kinds of threads here that some may or may not be thrilled about, but we should always keep a friendly tone about it (please see our forum rules - thanks!).



Diamonddelts said:


> These overpriced so called super subs from high end brick and mortar companies that offer mediocre performance(by today's sub performance standards) in a ultra small package. Equipment trying to defy the laws of physics for WAF will never EVER be in the league of World's Best Sub.


I would not suggest that all of these subs are merely mediocre. They are indeed excellent subs, although I might agree they are overpriced. At a respectable price they would be fine for MANY (that's a LOT) of people.


----------



## caper26

*phew* took me a while to get through this. In regards to the person who said "I don't care at all what the numbers say, I only care about what sounds good to me"... wouldn't the numbers for that piece of gear be up your alley? for instance, sub A is flat to 35 hz, sub B is flat to 16 Hz, same dB (output) and same 'everything' else (distortion, power handling, finish, etc etc) I am guessing YOU would think sub B 'sounds' better? as would most people? I know which one I would be buying... based only on the numbers. Anyway, my point is, that all electronics, and energy, can be measured, and will somewhat reflect on the piece of gear. That is not to say someone's TASTE for a piece of gear isn't different. Compare it to food. Someone at a high end restaurant may dislike entree A, and think a big mac tastes better, and vice versa for person #2. High prices don't mean that ALL food in that price range tastes great, but chances are a lot of people will like it.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
I am very happy to see the direction this thread has taken since being brought back from the dead. Truth be told, there is some excellent information on this thread that I honestly think can be quite helpful.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## pharoah

well some of us buy subwoofers.mainly due to the diy route being a no go.personally im the worlds worst carpenter.so im not building anything.it will look terrible,and probably not be sealed to well.now ive been reading here for years now and some of my fav subs in the world.do belong to members of this forum who built em.


----------

