Personally I would avoid any subwoofer that uses a passive radiator. Based on that reason alone I would choose the SVS. I agree with Big Greg that a subwoofer is going to excite the nodes/standing waves of your room, so you might want to have a plan as to how you want to deal with them. You will also want to plug the ports on the JBL’s
- ...
- 10 posts total
Previously owned the SVS SB16-Ultra. For its size it's a capable sub, and it goes deep (~15Hz). However If one can put aside the typical expectations about the sealed design, i.e.: it being automatically a shoe-in for "hifi" - and exclusively so, there are other design aspects, not to mention physics/acoustics to determine the overall performance of a sub. Compared to other, substantially larger and higher efficiency subs - both horn-loaded and ported - I found the SB16-Ultra's to be marred by a bit of overhang and a somewhat reticent, less-than-stellar midbass performance. Reading up on the new 17"-series by SVS they're no doubt good and for their size quite powerful subs. Solid engineering all around, it seems, with even more amp power and some revisions to the driver design and DSP. A pair of them (always go for a pair, or more if you care to go DBA) will serve a good foundation, but I wouldn't rule out the ported PB-version being a contender wrt. music. @big_greg wrote:
There's a lot of conjecture about "cinema" subs, or rather home cinema-capable subs. Mostly it simply comes down to a surplus in displacement area and overall size vs. "hifi" variants, and that they're sometimes ported. Mentioned Tekton sub houses a 300W amp, only about 1/10 of the SVS 17-series, but the design is more than 10dB sensitive, so those fewer watts will amount to more SPL-capacity at the end of the day. The real trick is the importance of higher efficiency, which is visibly apparent by the larger size of the Tekton when also taking into consideration that it offers less extension vs. the smaller SVS. Sonically I'd go so far to claim, even without hands-on experience, that the Tekton subs will integrate easier with the JBL 4367's due to the closer design semblance of the woofers. By comparison the SVS woofer is a decidedly low efficiency design with a higher moving mass (those 8" voice coils are monsters), a more important factor than whether a sub is ported or not. That's the price of deep extension from a small size factor; while more power and a more powerful woofer (which the SVS most certainly is taking kW's of power) can achieve infrasonics from a limited physical volume, it eats away sensitivity and dictates driver parameters not readily compatible with nimbleness of presentation. @deep_333 wrote:
Horn-loaded subs are altogether different beasts and bigger still. From my chair there are no better "audiophile" subs than horn-loaded variants when it comes to smooth, layered, effortless and enveloping bass reproduction. They're both less conspicuous in the mix and more shaking-the-air crazy powerful when called for, whereas direct radiation subs make themselves more known overall. The latter can be a quality to some ears with its more "thumping" and animating character, whereas horn subs have a more fluid omnipresence of bass. |
Absolutely get two subs. For the same price of one SB17 you could get two Rhythmik F12G subs that will go just as low as the SB17 — no integration software though. Alternatively, you could get two SB13s for $400 less than one SB17, and I’d definitely do either of those options over one SB17. FWIW, and best of luck. |
- 10 posts total