Anyone had a chance to compare?
My 5.1 setup will include 4 x R300s to a Yamaha RXA2020 receiver.
My 5.1 setup will include 4 x R300s to a Yamaha RXA2020 receiver.
Paradigm Seismic 110 vs KEF R400B Subwoofer - Which is better?
- Thread starter Systematic
- Start date
I have heard the Seismic 110, and imo it is one of the most impressive Subs in its price range. It has built-in EQ, which needs you to buy the PBK kit (unless you can convince the dealer to set it up for you, saving the price of buying the kit).
I haven't heard the R400B, so any comment I make is a guess.....which is, I suspect the Seismic 110 is better.....but if possible, you need to try this for yourself.
Sorry, can't help more than that,
Cno
I haven't heard the R400B, so any comment I make is a guess.....which is, I suspect the Seismic 110 is better.....but if possible, you need to try this for yourself.
Sorry, can't help more than that,
Cno
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
Better? It can be as personal as speakers.
Having heard the Paradigm Seismic, I have to say it is a good sub, but not a stand out one for me. I've heard quite a few small, powerful subs that don't actually sound like they cover the whole sub bass range - many just sound like they cover an extremely limited range, much like a car sub - Sunfire are a good example of this.
For a speaker manufacturer made sub, the R400 is actually a very good one. It is surprisingly deep for such a small sub, and very clean too, no doubt thanks in part to its force cancelling nature. I think it is quite underrated.
If you're looking at options, you could look at the Ken Kreisel DXD808, which price wise sits between the KEF (£995) and the Paradigm (£1350) at £1150. Like the KEF and the Paradigm, it produces a very clean output, but with a great ability to blend extremely well with other speakers. It's very tight and fast, and if and when the time comes to upgrade, you won't need to sell it - just add another one, invert it, stack it on top of your existing one and bolt them together. You then have a dual sub combo with increased headroom, greater presence, and with a bit of EQ'ing, greater depth. Up to four can be used in this way. No more losing money selling your old one on - don't lose, improve!
Having heard the Paradigm Seismic, I have to say it is a good sub, but not a stand out one for me. I've heard quite a few small, powerful subs that don't actually sound like they cover the whole sub bass range - many just sound like they cover an extremely limited range, much like a car sub - Sunfire are a good example of this.
For a speaker manufacturer made sub, the R400 is actually a very good one. It is surprisingly deep for such a small sub, and very clean too, no doubt thanks in part to its force cancelling nature. I think it is quite underrated.
If you're looking at options, you could look at the Ken Kreisel DXD808, which price wise sits between the KEF (£995) and the Paradigm (£1350) at £1150. Like the KEF and the Paradigm, it produces a very clean output, but with a great ability to blend extremely well with other speakers. It's very tight and fast, and if and when the time comes to upgrade, you won't need to sell it - just add another one, invert it, stack it on top of your existing one and bolt them together. You then have a dual sub combo with increased headroom, greater presence, and with a bit of EQ'ing, greater depth. Up to four can be used in this way. No more losing money selling your old one on - don't lose, improve!
I'm following this thread with great interest(and the one on the other site) as i'm looking to add a better sub,i don't want a big unit and i like the look of the kef,although it will obviously be used for av it's the hifi qualities that will decide.
When i got my speakers from you David i remembered the brief explanation you gave on that eq thingy you were using,(never heard of this before)so built in eq or external device have to be factored.
When i got my speakers from you David i remembered the brief explanation you gave on that eq thingy you were using,(never heard of this before)so built in eq or external device have to be factored.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
GSB said:
It all depends on the receiver and what frequency range its EQ covers. Many wont EQ sub frequencies, but one or two will. If the receiver doesn't something like an Antimode for a few hundred pounds will.
John Duncan
Well-known member
David@FrankHarvey said:If you're looking at options, you could look at the Ken Kreisel DXD808, which price wise sits between the KEF (£995) and the Paradigm (£1350) at £1150. Like the KEF and the Paradigm, it produces a very clean output, but with a great ability to blend extremely well with other speakers. It's very tight and fast, and if and when the time comes to upgrade, you won't need to sell it - just add another one, invert it, stack it on top of your existing one and bolt them together. You then have a dual sub combo with increased headroom, greater presence, and with a bit of EQ'ing, greater depth. Up to four can be used in this way. No more losing money selling your old one on - don't lose, improve!
And where could I buy one of those, David?
BenLaw
Well-known member
Well at least that wasn't about AVI Spiny. Any comment on whether you have a trade status to declare?
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
I have a great deal of experience with both subwoofers having stocked each brand extensively. To my mind the Paradigm is the clear winner against the KEF. The R400 is well made and certainly trumps the 110 on looks but for performance it is short of the mark against the 110 and that is before you eq it.
You have a good set up there - is it the form factor that attracts you to these units or is it the price point?
You have a good set up there - is it the form factor that attracts you to these units or is it the price point?
Hi,
My problem with Paradigm & their subwoofers is that for such a well renowned speaker company, they simply refuse point blank to ever publish/specify any Frequency Response figures for their subs which I find both incredible & ridiculous in this day & age considering they are considered premium products & for the hefy amounts they cost.
It makes one wonder why such a well respected brand would do such a thing, the reasons behind doing so & if they are trying to hide something especially when one considers that the many other subwoofer brands have no problem providing such required information.
Paradigm do quote a "Subwoofer Cut Off Frequency" but that is not the same thing as the +/-3dB Lower & Upper Frequency Range.
I beleive that Paradigm are being by design, somewhat elusive & disingenious in this regard & doing themselves & their customers a disservice by relying on their reputation as a justification not to publish basic required data.
If one requests such vaildated data from either Paradigm, their distributors & dealers, it simply will not be given & in the case of the latter two, they simply will not have it.
I realise that this might not be an issue for most that use crossover settings of between 80Hz-100Hz for their speakers but for those who might be running smaller satellite speakers (which are now very much common place these days) requiring crossover settings like 150Hz or higher, there is just no way to ascertain/determine whether their subs would be a good match without the hassle of finding a dealer for a demo (& taking your speakers with you) or buying them upfront & find out for oneself and then to through the hassle of returns, postage costs & restocking fees etc if they do not.
If one looks at a company like SVS for example, all relevant data is given including actual measurement graphs to help customers make a far better & informed choice rather them leaving them in the dark or having them just guess or hope for the best.
My 2 Cents anyway...
My problem with Paradigm & their subwoofers is that for such a well renowned speaker company, they simply refuse point blank to ever publish/specify any Frequency Response figures for their subs which I find both incredible & ridiculous in this day & age considering they are considered premium products & for the hefy amounts they cost.
It makes one wonder why such a well respected brand would do such a thing, the reasons behind doing so & if they are trying to hide something especially when one considers that the many other subwoofer brands have no problem providing such required information.
Paradigm do quote a "Subwoofer Cut Off Frequency" but that is not the same thing as the +/-3dB Lower & Upper Frequency Range.
I beleive that Paradigm are being by design, somewhat elusive & disingenious in this regard & doing themselves & their customers a disservice by relying on their reputation as a justification not to publish basic required data.
If one requests such vaildated data from either Paradigm, their distributors & dealers, it simply will not be given & in the case of the latter two, they simply will not have it.
I realise that this might not be an issue for most that use crossover settings of between 80Hz-100Hz for their speakers but for those who might be running smaller satellite speakers (which are now very much common place these days) requiring crossover settings like 150Hz or higher, there is just no way to ascertain/determine whether their subs would be a good match without the hassle of finding a dealer for a demo (& taking your speakers with you) or buying them upfront & find out for oneself and then to through the hassle of returns, postage costs & restocking fees etc if they do not.
If one looks at a company like SVS for example, all relevant data is given including actual measurement graphs to help customers make a far better & informed choice rather them leaving them in the dark or having them just guess or hope for the best.
My 2 Cents anyway...
TheHomeCinemaCentre said:
I was thinking you might be in a position to offer first hand insight.
Bazzy said:
Your post is a strange one, and show's a complete lack of understanding of the way bass frequencies behave in a room. Below 200Hz it doesn't matter a jot what the frequency response of a subwoofer is in anechoic conditions, as in room response will not resemble anything close to it. The standing waves and natural room modes in your listening space will guarantee that the frequency response is anything other that perfectly flat. Indeed it is quite likely the response varies well in excess of +/- 3dB, potentially more in the order or +/- 12dB.
A proper EQ system or extensive and well designed room treatments will aid in a achieving an in room response that is within +/- 3dB, and that again has little to do with the anechoic response of the subwoofer.
The fact that Paradigm haven't disclosed to you the anechoic frequency response of their subwoofers tells me they understand the meaningless nature of such a specification, and reflects more a desire not to mislead an uneducated buyer into thinking that is the frequency response they will hear when they get the sub home.
Rest assured the Paradigm makes some if the best subwoofers in the world - the Sub 2 being arguably THE best subwoofer in the world.
The only way you will realise that is by listening to them in your own room - something no amount of spec reading will ever help you with.
BenLaw
Well-known member
Do you have any system pics up Chewy? If not could we get some? That is one insane system you have there
BenLaw said:Do you have any system pics up Chewy? If not could we get some? That is one insane system you have there
Many thanks mate
My sig is actually quite out of date, I must update it, both the processor and speakers have now changed.
No system pics at the mo I'm afraid, my room is currently stripped (i.e. not even plaster on the walls) and in the middle of a refurb (DIY) - I'm currently adding copious amount of soundproofing.
Chewy said:
I agree 100% with Chewy re the Paradigm Subs.
My Sub15 is hiding nothing,I assure you.
Hi,
In reply to Chewy's post - thank you & yes, I will be the first to admit that my knowledge & understanding may be limited & I admit that I should have clearly stated that I have basic level undertanding about these things. In my defence, what I posted was information gleaned from a number various industry articles, reviewers, av sources, dealers & on-line forums etc who are also extremely expert & knowledgeable.
Most of the above seem to very strongly concur that it is extremely important to ensure there is no "Sonic Hole" between a Subwoofer & the main speakers & the best way to ensure this is to try & ascertain (rather than shoot in the dark or hope for the best) that the subwoofers +/-3dB upper frequency range can extend high enough where the satellite speakers need have the crossover set at. For example, if the sats need a minimum crossover setting of 150Hz & the sub's upper frequency can only extend up to 100Hz then a noticeable "sonic hole" will exist between these two figures- is this correct or not?
In the case of my satellites, they were tested in "non anechoic" conditions as requiring a crossover of 168hz - how can one determine (without buying upfront) if say, the Seismic 110's FR would extend high enough to match well without any supporting data or at least some sort of indication?
I made the caveat in my post that Paradigm was an extremly well renowned & well respected company so was not knocking the qulity of their products in any way - just frustration at the lack of information to help those with less than expert knowledge to gain a better idea if their subs would match well with their existing equipment which is why I also quoted the very well regarded SVS Subs as an example with regards to the information they (& most other brands) provide. If other outstanding brands have no problem providing information then why does Paradigm? It's simple enough to do & not like they do not test for such things - whether in the lab or in demo rooms simulating typical listening enviroments is it?
I also made it clear that for most it might not be an issue as they would most likely much bigger & better speakers requiring much lower crossover settings that but this is not my case. I asked a number of dealers & was given conflicting information with some saying that they do not know & could not tell as the "specs" were unclear. I even called the distributors & they also could not give me any clear guidance & were very much on the fence as to whether the sub would integrate well or not. The only advice they could give was to buy it & see which at £1400, was for me a bit of a hard gamble to take & somewhat frustrating.
Since you are so expert & knowledgeable about these things, can you then definitively & absolutely tell me then if the Seismic 110 has a +/-3dB FR that extends high enough to match & blend in well with satellites that need to have a crossover setting of between 150Hz-168Hz & there is no risk of a "Sonic Hole" existing?
In the interests of helping my lack of understanding of these things, I would also be extemely grateful if you could explain how you were able to come to that determination so I may then apply your reasoning and/or formula in future if the need ever arises.
I really like the Seismic 110 due to it's form factor & small footprint & really would like to consider it but need to know that it would integrate well with my speakers & for those who are not esteemed experts, we have to rely on what the consensus of the mainstream expert sources say & by inferring from any data provided which is what I have done. If this is wrong & my lack of understanding is still clearly evident or if I am still deeply misundertsanding of things, then please kindly feel free to explain things in laymans terms to someone not as knowledgeable as you.
My sincere aplogies to the OP if my posts have distracted from your thread.
In reply to Chewy's post - thank you & yes, I will be the first to admit that my knowledge & understanding may be limited & I admit that I should have clearly stated that I have basic level undertanding about these things. In my defence, what I posted was information gleaned from a number various industry articles, reviewers, av sources, dealers & on-line forums etc who are also extremely expert & knowledgeable.
Most of the above seem to very strongly concur that it is extremely important to ensure there is no "Sonic Hole" between a Subwoofer & the main speakers & the best way to ensure this is to try & ascertain (rather than shoot in the dark or hope for the best) that the subwoofers +/-3dB upper frequency range can extend high enough where the satellite speakers need have the crossover set at. For example, if the sats need a minimum crossover setting of 150Hz & the sub's upper frequency can only extend up to 100Hz then a noticeable "sonic hole" will exist between these two figures- is this correct or not?
In the case of my satellites, they were tested in "non anechoic" conditions as requiring a crossover of 168hz - how can one determine (without buying upfront) if say, the Seismic 110's FR would extend high enough to match well without any supporting data or at least some sort of indication?
I made the caveat in my post that Paradigm was an extremly well renowned & well respected company so was not knocking the qulity of their products in any way - just frustration at the lack of information to help those with less than expert knowledge to gain a better idea if their subs would match well with their existing equipment which is why I also quoted the very well regarded SVS Subs as an example with regards to the information they (& most other brands) provide. If other outstanding brands have no problem providing information then why does Paradigm? It's simple enough to do & not like they do not test for such things - whether in the lab or in demo rooms simulating typical listening enviroments is it?
I also made it clear that for most it might not be an issue as they would most likely much bigger & better speakers requiring much lower crossover settings that but this is not my case. I asked a number of dealers & was given conflicting information with some saying that they do not know & could not tell as the "specs" were unclear. I even called the distributors & they also could not give me any clear guidance & were very much on the fence as to whether the sub would integrate well or not. The only advice they could give was to buy it & see which at £1400, was for me a bit of a hard gamble to take & somewhat frustrating.
Since you are so expert & knowledgeable about these things, can you then definitively & absolutely tell me then if the Seismic 110 has a +/-3dB FR that extends high enough to match & blend in well with satellites that need to have a crossover setting of between 150Hz-168Hz & there is no risk of a "Sonic Hole" existing?
In the interests of helping my lack of understanding of these things, I would also be extemely grateful if you could explain how you were able to come to that determination so I may then apply your reasoning and/or formula in future if the need ever arises.
I really like the Seismic 110 due to it's form factor & small footprint & really would like to consider it but need to know that it would integrate well with my speakers & for those who are not esteemed experts, we have to rely on what the consensus of the mainstream expert sources say & by inferring from any data provided which is what I have done. If this is wrong & my lack of understanding is still clearly evident or if I am still deeply misundertsanding of things, then please kindly feel free to explain things in laymans terms to someone not as knowledgeable as you.
My sincere aplogies to the OP if my posts have distracted from your thread.
Im currently using a REL R 205 with an anti-mode that i bought about 4 years ago. After reading this thread, ive started to read favourable reviews regarding the Paradigm Seismic 110 and i would consider upgrading. I like the compact design as the room i use for my system is fairly small. I guess im just wondering whether i would see a great deal more performance when compared to my old REL?
@Bazzy:
Ah! I understand now what your issue is. OK, in my personal opinion any subwoofer worth its salt should be able to operate to at least 200Hz.
In terms if the Seismic 110, it has an adjustable cross over frequency dial on its rear which allows the setting of the bass cross over between the speakers and the sub - in this particular model it allows adjustment in the range 35Hz - 150Hz, however if your AVR allows it, you may be able to set this slightly higher.
That said, I think the real issue here, is not the sub, it is your speakers. I have not encountered a set of speakers that require such a high cross over. Even back when I used to own Kef 2005.2's (Kef Eggs) they'd happily play down beyond 80Hz. The issue with such a high cross over, is two fold in that a) you are asking a subwoofer with a single large bass driver to accuratly reproduce lower mid bass frequencies which any sub will struggle to do when compared to a properly designed speaker driver, and b) at that frequency the sound is likely to be highly localisable and rather than coming from the left, right, centre or surrounds to help place objects in the soundstage, will be coming from a single combined point source exactly where the subwoofer sits.
Can I ask, if the OP will permit me to go off topic slightly, what speakers you have?
Given the Seismic is around £1200 you may find a greater performance increase from upgrading your main speakers?
Ah! I understand now what your issue is. OK, in my personal opinion any subwoofer worth its salt should be able to operate to at least 200Hz.
In terms if the Seismic 110, it has an adjustable cross over frequency dial on its rear which allows the setting of the bass cross over between the speakers and the sub - in this particular model it allows adjustment in the range 35Hz - 150Hz, however if your AVR allows it, you may be able to set this slightly higher.
That said, I think the real issue here, is not the sub, it is your speakers. I have not encountered a set of speakers that require such a high cross over. Even back when I used to own Kef 2005.2's (Kef Eggs) they'd happily play down beyond 80Hz. The issue with such a high cross over, is two fold in that a) you are asking a subwoofer with a single large bass driver to accuratly reproduce lower mid bass frequencies which any sub will struggle to do when compared to a properly designed speaker driver, and b) at that frequency the sound is likely to be highly localisable and rather than coming from the left, right, centre or surrounds to help place objects in the soundstage, will be coming from a single combined point source exactly where the subwoofer sits.
Can I ask, if the OP will permit me to go off topic slightly, what speakers you have?
Given the Seismic is around £1200 you may find a greater performance increase from upgrading your main speakers?
Hi Chewy,
Apologies for the delay in responding & many kind thanks for taking the time to understand my issue! My receiver is an Onkyp TX-NR818 if that helps. Please correct me if I am wrong but the Seismic 110's "Cut-Off Frequency" gives no indication of the actual Frequency Response of the subwoofer - the Paradigm manual states:
"Subwoofer Cut-Off and Bypass Option - Controls the subwoofer's upper cut-off. This can be set to match the low frequency roll off characteristics of your system's speakers. For example: if your speakers play to approximately 80Hz, you can set the subwoofer cut off frequency to approximately 80Hz. If you are using an external subwoofer cut off control, setting this setting to maximum effectively bypasses the subwoofer's built in cut off control. Bypass option allows you to bypass the subwoofer's built in cut off control to ley your preamp/processor's or receivers internal bass management system provide the crossover function."
To me, this conveys that this "variable cut-off frequency" is a low pass filter & applies to any upper cut-off frequency but not the overall response of the subwoofer - is this correct? I ask this as I have seen quite a few subs that allow a variable low pass filter (like that of the Seismic 110) that can be set at 150Hz but the actual +/-3dB FR figures might be say 25Hz-120Hz as an example. Other reasons why I have concerns are that I have also been informed:
"If you ever see a Frequency Response without a +/- 'X'dB, it is a bogus or meaningless claim you have no idea at what level the speakers would put out that lower or upper frequencies"
as well as:
"Manufacturers have a way of skewing data. If there is no measured SPL chart to back up Frequency Response claims, then those claims should be taken with a huge truckload of salt"
With regards to may Satellite speakers, I am/will be running 3 x Cambridge Audio Min21's for the LCR duties & 6 x Min20's for all the Surrounds. Cambridge Audio state a FR of 120Hz-20Khz for the Min21's & 130Hz-20Khz for the Min20's. However, nearly every user of these speakers I have gleaned opinion from has stated that they need to have a minimum crossover of at least 150Hz if not higher & that CA's specs are quite misleading - not only will a noticeable sonic hole be present if one uses the 120Hz/130Hz crossover setting but one risks blowing the speakers which has happened to at least one person I know of. Please note, these are quite small speaks with small drivers - more of a lifestyle design but has received numerous rave reviews. I find it also ironic however that CA's specs also do not state whether they are the +/-3dB measurements & based on the actual experience of many users, it is extremely unlikely that CA's numbers are "valid' in the real world & kind of validates the two bolded quotes above!
Unfortunately, I cannot change speakers as they have to fit in aesthetically & not be too dominating otherwise I will be heading back to singledom before I know it & the that goes for the subwoofer too! It kind of defeats the purpose of having small, unobtrusive speakers only then for a juggernaut size sub dominating the room! I really need a sub that is forward firing & fully sealed for both practical & aesthetic reasons and with a small as possible footprint. The Seismic 110 is one of the very few that I can find that ticks many boxes & my thinking was that even though it is very expensive, at least, I will not have to upgrade in future. The issue for me is whether it has a upper frequency that goes high enough to blend in with the Min20/21 speakers to avoid a gap in the sound & with my limited experience & knowledge level, I have no way of knowing or telling!
I hope that makes things a little clearer & trust you can understand why at £1350, it is not a gamble I am willing to take without at least some reassurance! Once again, forgive any assumptions and/or lack of understanding on my part & apologies again to the OP if the thread has been sidetracked due to my participation.
Apologies for the delay in responding & many kind thanks for taking the time to understand my issue! My receiver is an Onkyp TX-NR818 if that helps. Please correct me if I am wrong but the Seismic 110's "Cut-Off Frequency" gives no indication of the actual Frequency Response of the subwoofer - the Paradigm manual states:
"Subwoofer Cut-Off and Bypass Option - Controls the subwoofer's upper cut-off. This can be set to match the low frequency roll off characteristics of your system's speakers. For example: if your speakers play to approximately 80Hz, you can set the subwoofer cut off frequency to approximately 80Hz. If you are using an external subwoofer cut off control, setting this setting to maximum effectively bypasses the subwoofer's built in cut off control. Bypass option allows you to bypass the subwoofer's built in cut off control to ley your preamp/processor's or receivers internal bass management system provide the crossover function."
To me, this conveys that this "variable cut-off frequency" is a low pass filter & applies to any upper cut-off frequency but not the overall response of the subwoofer - is this correct? I ask this as I have seen quite a few subs that allow a variable low pass filter (like that of the Seismic 110) that can be set at 150Hz but the actual +/-3dB FR figures might be say 25Hz-120Hz as an example. Other reasons why I have concerns are that I have also been informed:
"If you ever see a Frequency Response without a +/- 'X'dB, it is a bogus or meaningless claim you have no idea at what level the speakers would put out that lower or upper frequencies"
as well as:
"Manufacturers have a way of skewing data. If there is no measured SPL chart to back up Frequency Response claims, then those claims should be taken with a huge truckload of salt"
With regards to may Satellite speakers, I am/will be running 3 x Cambridge Audio Min21's for the LCR duties & 6 x Min20's for all the Surrounds. Cambridge Audio state a FR of 120Hz-20Khz for the Min21's & 130Hz-20Khz for the Min20's. However, nearly every user of these speakers I have gleaned opinion from has stated that they need to have a minimum crossover of at least 150Hz if not higher & that CA's specs are quite misleading - not only will a noticeable sonic hole be present if one uses the 120Hz/130Hz crossover setting but one risks blowing the speakers which has happened to at least one person I know of. Please note, these are quite small speaks with small drivers - more of a lifestyle design but has received numerous rave reviews. I find it also ironic however that CA's specs also do not state whether they are the +/-3dB measurements & based on the actual experience of many users, it is extremely unlikely that CA's numbers are "valid' in the real world & kind of validates the two bolded quotes above!
Unfortunately, I cannot change speakers as they have to fit in aesthetically & not be too dominating otherwise I will be heading back to singledom before I know it & the that goes for the subwoofer too! It kind of defeats the purpose of having small, unobtrusive speakers only then for a juggernaut size sub dominating the room! I really need a sub that is forward firing & fully sealed for both practical & aesthetic reasons and with a small as possible footprint. The Seismic 110 is one of the very few that I can find that ticks many boxes & my thinking was that even though it is very expensive, at least, I will not have to upgrade in future. The issue for me is whether it has a upper frequency that goes high enough to blend in with the Min20/21 speakers to avoid a gap in the sound & with my limited experience & knowledge level, I have no way of knowing or telling!
I hope that makes things a little clearer & trust you can understand why at £1350, it is not a gamble I am willing to take without at least some reassurance! Once again, forgive any assumptions and/or lack of understanding on my part & apologies again to the OP if the thread has been sidetracked due to my participation.
Hi Bazzy,
You are right in that the the low pass filter on a sub doesn't directly indicate the frequency response of that sub at each of those low pass filter settings. However I would be hugely surprised if a manufacturer producing a £1,350 sub would offer, on that sub, a cut-off frequency that the sub itself doesn't support and can't perform to - quite the opposite, I would expect the natural roll off of the sub to start a fair bit higher. I could be wrong of course!
That said, again when we talk about the frequency response of a sub, we are talking about this being measured in an anechoic chamber, not a listening room. The in room response will be wildly different, this has the potential to work either way for you, you could find you have a null in your seating position at 150Hz, and therefore will get significantly less SPL from 'any' subwoofer at that point aty that frequency, irrespective of the measured frequency response. Likewise you could have a mode in that position and get significantly more SPL in the same way. This of course is dependent on the subwoofer placement, so if you have a few placement options available som experimentation will be in order.
I really think your only option is to do a home demo of the sub you want, and measure its output at your chosen cross over point. At this price point any dealer worth their salt should oblige. Given that you have a decent reciever in the 818, which also includes Audessey's latest iteration of XT32, you should also be able to mitigate some of the modal interaction your sub will have with your room and correct its in-room frequency response.
You are right in that the the low pass filter on a sub doesn't directly indicate the frequency response of that sub at each of those low pass filter settings. However I would be hugely surprised if a manufacturer producing a £1,350 sub would offer, on that sub, a cut-off frequency that the sub itself doesn't support and can't perform to - quite the opposite, I would expect the natural roll off of the sub to start a fair bit higher. I could be wrong of course!
That said, again when we talk about the frequency response of a sub, we are talking about this being measured in an anechoic chamber, not a listening room. The in room response will be wildly different, this has the potential to work either way for you, you could find you have a null in your seating position at 150Hz, and therefore will get significantly less SPL from 'any' subwoofer at that point aty that frequency, irrespective of the measured frequency response. Likewise you could have a mode in that position and get significantly more SPL in the same way. This of course is dependent on the subwoofer placement, so if you have a few placement options available som experimentation will be in order.
I really think your only option is to do a home demo of the sub you want, and measure its output at your chosen cross over point. At this price point any dealer worth their salt should oblige. Given that you have a decent reciever in the 818, which also includes Audessey's latest iteration of XT32, you should also be able to mitigate some of the modal interaction your sub will have with your room and correct its in-room frequency response.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram