Do higher end subwoofer cables make for a sound quality improvement?

[DaveC]

The low level information from subs enhances the imaging. It's about the space, not the bass.

Agreed, but it's actually everything. Quality bass is actually required to perceive highs correctly as they are psychoacoustically linked... without extended bass highs will seem to be overly prominent even if they are not. And vice versa.

Bose figured this out a long time ago, but they used it for evil. If you roll off both highs and lows at the same time it somehow seems balanced, which makes the Bose Acoustimass system somehow work out to those who don't know better. I used to sell AV, Bose gave us the entire Acoustimass display and insisted it be presented in a certain way using video along with audio and not providing any way to directly compare the material to any other speaker, in fact they insisted on no direct comparisons. For those unfamiliar, the system is a bunch of 2" full range drivers + a super cheap bandpass 1-note subwoofer. No highs, no lows...

Clean bass allows for better timbre as well as spatial presentation, better, sharper dynamics, improved pace... I think everything is better when you lower distortion and remove warmth from bass frequencies.

Sealed and ported both have their + and -. Don't forget, sealed have a gentler roll off (more LF output), ported drop off like a rock.

Another justification whereby the XVX can't come close to any appreciative output below the port tuned Freq at ~21Hz.

Yes, I see the utility of sealed boxes, especially for distributed subs... they're small and easy to design, easy to get right for a DIY project too. I think a ported box can be better, especially when considering a woofer that is crossed over higher than a subwoofer, but they're larger and more complex. Downside is it all falls apart under the tuning frequency, lol... but I'm ok with 20 Hz.

 

[sbo6]

Agreed, but it's actually everything. Quality bass is actually required to perceive highs correctly as they are psychoacoustically linked... without extended bass highs will seem to be overly prominent even if they are not. And vice versa.

Bose figured this out a long time ago, but they used it for evil. If you roll off both highs and lows at the same time it somehow seems balanced, which makes the Bose Acoustimass system somehow work out to those who don't know better. I used to sell AV, Bose gave us the entire Acoustimass display and insisted it be presented in a certain way using video along with audio and not providing any way to directly compare the material to any other speaker, in fact they insisted on no direct comparisons. For those unfamiliar, the system is a bunch of 2" full range drivers + a super cheap bandpass 1-note subwoofer. No highs, no lows...

Clean bass allows for better timbre as well as spatial presentation, better, sharper dynamics, improved pace... I think everything is better when you lower distortion and remove warmth from bass frequencies.



Yes, I see the utility of sealed boxes, especially for distributed subs... they're small and easy to design, easy to get right for a DIY project too. I think a ported box can be better, especially when considering a woofer that is crossed over higher than a subwoofer, but they're larger and more complex. Downside is it all falls apart under the tuning frequency, lol... but I'm ok with 20 Hz.

Finally a bass post I can 110% agree with!

BTW, I think Bose used 4 1/2" drivers, assuming you're referring to the 901s. I think it was 8 in the back 1 in the front. I recall they sounded terrible IMO.

 

[microstrip]

(...) BTW, I think Bose used 4 1/2" drivers, assuming you're referring to the 901s. I think it was 8 in the back 1 in the front. I recall they sounded terrible IMO.

I have not listened to the 901's for decades, but I have great memories of a pair sounding very musical in a small bar in my neighborhood in the middle - late 70's. We met their to have a beer listening to jazz, the days of Keith Jarrett, Jan Garbarek, Ralph Towner ...

I have read that people have a bipolar reaction to them - either founding them marvellous or terrible!

 

[treitz3]

Clean bass allows for better timbre as well as spatial presentation, better, sharper dynamics, improved pace... I think everything is better when you lower distortion and remove warmth from bass frequencies.

Absolutely IME.

Tom

 

[Charles S]

BTW, since you mentioned Robert Harley previously, here's what he had to say about the Magico M9 that he reviewed in May 2022. Note that he had already reviewed the Wilson XVX in Dec 2020.

"Overall, I have to say that the Magico M9 is the best-sounding loudspeaker I’ve heard. It represents the ultimate realization of the accumulated knowledge and sophisticated technologies Magico has developed over the past 25 years, along with some remarkable innovations that push the M9’s performance to an unprecedented level."

sb06, Here is what RH says about the XVX "I’ve lived with many, many of the world’s greatest loudspeakers in my home, and heard countless others at shows, but I’ve never heard a speaker quite like the Chronosonic XVX. It is the most realistic sounding, the most musically expressive, and the most intellectually and emotionally engaging loudspeaker I’ve heard." And I know that he still thinks this currently.

It wasn't my intent to create a debate. The XVX is a slightly smaller version of the WAMM Master Chronosonic. It is of the same build quality and has essentially the same ruggedness. It has the same woofers as the XVX. The XVX will work on its own, but it will only reach its full potential with two Subsonics, for which it was designed. It is designed to be run full range with them. So, this puts the XVX in the same price range as an M9. The M9 was not designed specifically for subwoofers as was the WAMM and XVX. The XVX/Subsonic system will be about 700K. The WAMM about 944K. Regarding the port tunning frequency, I refer you to MC's measurements. His article is titled "The Entry Ticket to a 1m hi-fi System."

I put on Telarc's "The Great Fantasy Adventure": "Caution: Digital Sound Effects at high levels with infrasonic frequencies to 5 Hz. Please establish safe playback levels before playing tracks."" I put track 3 T. Rex! which is 54 seconds long with volume at 50%. It has the 5 Hz frequency. The remainder of the music sounds natural at this level so it is reasonable to play T. Rex! at this level and see if the Thor or XVX will overload. The excursion of the Thor is massive, but it hangs in there without overload. I could notice a small excursion of the XVX woofers during the 54 seconds at a distance of about one foot from the side of the left speaker with my eyes focused intently on them. The XVX had zero problems handling the 54 seconds of T. Rex!. I think the M9 is a very fine speaker, but it is not in the same ballpark as a Thor in ultimate LF output. Neither is an XVX, but the XVX is more impervious to LF overload than either one M9 or one Thor. As for build quality, the XVX is on par with an M9 because it is on par with the WAMM Master Chronosonic.

I know how powerful a Thor is, and I own an XVX and I can observe that I have great concern over my beautiful Thor playing this track albeit in summed mono which adds about 3-6 dB extra but zero concern over the XVX. I would not want to play this track on an M9 at really high levels. Its 15" woofers could not handle it. There are only two of them and they will not come close to matching the Thor's massive 15" dual spider woofers and its huge ports in LF output. Ultimately, the M9's woofers are sealed boxes and are not subwoofers. The Thor's woofers are specially designed for subwoofers. The Subsonic uses a 12" version of this woofer with a sensitivity of 87 dB. I think two of them about equal to a Thor in output which has a sensitivity of 94 dB.

 

[bonzo75]

Have you heard an M9? M7?

Yes M9, M7, and XVX, latter two in same room with same upstream including Dartzeel 468, and videos of latter two on my channel

 

[DasguteOhr]

I hardly believe that you can hear and feel sounds below 20 Hz continuously. Perception below 20 Hz requires at least 100 dB of sound pressure. This means that if you want to hear sounds below 20 Hz, you have to hear your music at 100 dB SPL continuously at your listening position. The human ear is very deaf below 20 Hz. If you've ever heard an organ concert in a large church, you might be able to hear the subcontra C tone (16 Hz). But only because the reverberation time is significantly above 1 and the sound stays in the room for a long time.
Exsample Sankt Peter dom in regensburg ,germany

 

[Charles S]

I hardly believe that you can hear and feel sounds below 20 Hz continuously. Perception below 20 Hz requires at least 100 dB of sound pressure. This means that if you want to hear sounds below 20 Hz, you have to hear your music at 100 dB SPL continuously at your listening position. The human ear is very deaf below 20 Hz. If you've ever heard an organ concert in a large church, you might be able to hear the subcontra C tone (16 Hz). But only because the reverberation time is significantly above 1 and the sound stays in the room for a long time.

I estimate I have about 20dB of boost at and below 20 Hz. About 10 dB at 30 Hz. About 3-4 dB at 40 Hz. You are correct in your belief and understanding. I can hear and feel infrasonic frequencies at between .02 and .2 watts with my Thor/XVX. It's the continuous extremely soft LF tones recorded at very low levels that are the most exciting qualities of my system, not the thunderous loud notes. My system picks up everything below 20 Hz. It's thrilling. Once you become aware of the infrasonic realm, that it's really there, you can never go back.

 

[DasguteOhr]

I estimate I have about 20dB of boost at and below 20 Hz. About 10 dB at 30 Hz. About 3-4 dB at 40 Hz. You are correct in your belief and understanding. I can hear and feel infrasonic frequencies at between .02 and .2 watts with my Thor/XVX. It's the continuous extremely soft LF tones recorded at very low levels that are the most exciting qualities of my system, not the thunderous loud notes. My system picks up everything below 20 Hz. It's thrilling. Once you become aware of the infrasonic realm, that it's really there, you can never go back.

I'm happy with 30 Hz without any loss of efficiency. Anything below that causes acoustic problems. The rooms need to be treated extremely acoustically. Then they no longer feel like a cozy living room. I had that years ago, and I threw everything out, leaving only what was necessary to enjoy the music.
Rarely have I heard a truly good concept that works flawlessly at 20 Hz. A double bass array can do that, but it's too much effort for me.



P.S backwall looks equal

 

[Al M.]

I'm happy with 30 Hz without any loss of efficiency. Anything below that causes acoustic problems. The rooms need to be treated extremely acoustically. Then they no longer feel like a cozy living room. I had that years ago, and I threw everything out, leaving only what was necessary to enjoy the music.
Rarely have I heard a truly good concept that works flawlessly at 20 Hz. A double bass array can do that, but it's too much effort for me.

My room is much smaller (see my signature) than your room seems to be, and I also have clear problems with very low frequencies. Fortunately my JL Audio subwoofers have an e.l.f. (extreme low frequency) attenuation, which I set to -10 dB at 25 Hz. Without this attenuation my bass would be unworkable -- lots of boom boom, depending on the music. The JL Audio people are smart to offer that attenuation, not many subwoofer manufacturers do. The manual states, I quote from memory, something like "this can be useful in not so large rooms". Indeed.

My subs are set to only kick in below 40 Hz, using the steep 24 dB per octave filter. Combined with the above a narrow band thus, but a very effective supplement to the sound. The subs play at moderate volume, I want to supplement the music, not create "sound effects".

 

[sbo6]

sb06, Here is what RH says about the XVX "I’ve lived with many, many of the world’s greatest loudspeakers in my home, and heard countless others at shows, but I’ve never heard a speaker quite like the Chronosonic XVX. It is the most realistic sounding, the most musically expressive, and the most intellectually and emotionally engaging loudspeaker I’ve heard." And I know that he still thinks this currently.

It wasn't my intent to create a debate. The XVX is a slightly smaller version of the WAMM Master Chronosonic. It is of the same build quality and has essentially the same ruggedness. It has the same woofers as the XVX. The XVX will work on its own, but it will only reach its full potential with two Subsonics, for which it was designed. It is designed to be run full range with them. So, this puts the XVX in the same price range as an M9. The M9 was not designed specifically for subwoofers as was the WAMM and XVX. The XVX/Subsonic system will be about 700K. The WAMM about 944K. Regarding the port tunning frequency, I refer you to MC's measurements. His article is titled "The Entry Ticket to a 1m hi-fi System."

I put on Telarc's "The Great Fantasy Adventure": "Caution: Digital Sound Effects at high levels with infrasonic frequencies to 5 Hz. Please establish safe playback levels before playing tracks."" I put track 3 T. Rex! which is 54 seconds long with volume at 50%. It has the 5 Hz frequency. The remainder of the music sounds natural at this level so it is reasonable to play T. Rex! at this level and see if the Thor or XVX will overload. The excursion of the Thor is massive, but it hangs in there without overload. I could notice a small excursion of the XVX woofers during the 54 seconds at a distance of about one foot from the side of the left speaker with my eyes focused intently on them. The XVX had zero problems handling the 54 seconds of T. Rex!. I think the M9 is a very fine speaker, but it is not in the same ballpark as a Thor in ultimate LF output. Neither is an XVX, but the XVX is more impervious to LF overload than either one M9 or one Thor. As for build quality, the XVX is on par with an M9 because it is on par with the WAMM Master Chronosonic.

I know how powerful a Thor is, and I own an XVX and I can observe that I have great concern over my beautiful Thor playing this track albeit in summed mono which adds about 3-6 dB extra but zero concern over the XVX. I would not want to play this track on an M9 at really high levels. Its 15" woofers could not handle it. There are only two of them and they will not come close to matching the Thor's massive 15" dual spider woofers and its huge ports in LF output. Ultimately, the M9's woofers are sealed boxes and are not subwoofers. The Thor's woofers are specially designed for subwoofers. The Subsonic uses a 12" version of this woofer with a sensitivity of 87 dB. I think two of them about equal to a Thor in output which has a sensitivity of 94 dB.

No worries, no debate, just conversation and differing opinions.

WRT RH comment on the XVX being best, as I stated earlier, that was BEFORE he heard the Magico M9. After hearing the M9 and having already heard the XVX he posted publicly in his M9 review, ""Overall, I have to say that the Magico M9 is the best-sounding loudspeaker I’ve heard. It represents the ultimate realization of the accumulated knowledge and sophisticated technologies Magico has developed over the past 25 years, along with some remarkable innovations that push the M9’s performance to an unprecedented level."

Now, specific to your XVX comment and RH previously believing it was the best before hearing the M9 you say you "know he still thinks this currently" So was he lying in the review? Or lying to you? At the end of the day, this is one person's opinion. I added his comment WRT the M9 as the best speaker because you seem to place much credence on this one person's preferences. I see it as one of many data points; most important to me is via my ears.

Also, WRT your comment, "Ultimately, the M9's woofers are sealed boxes and are not subwoofers. The Thor's woofers are specially designed for subwoofers." - A little education again - A) Subwoofers / woofers can be sealed, ported, OB, etc. They can be part of the mains or separate. The design choice does not negate the purpose. B) Magico has employed M9s with their own subs irrespective of whether one considers the M9's 2: 15" drivers as subs or not.

At the end of the day, I'm glad you're happy with the XVX, I'm sure it's a very good speaker and clearly nothing can dissuade you from being a strong Wilson fanboy, even physics. But reality is - it's simply not in the same league as the much more costly, much larger Magico M9. And Wilson and Magico can add subs, that's irrelevant. I recommend adding subs to any and all speakers, space and budget notwithstanding.

I'll probably hear the M6 and M9 this summer, looking forward to it. Enjoy!

 

[sbo6]

I estimate I have about 20dB of boost at and below 20 Hz. About 10 dB at 30 Hz. About 3-4 dB at 40 Hz. You are correct in your belief and understanding. I can hear and feel infrasonic frequencies at between .02 and .2 watts with my Thor/XVX. It's the continuous extremely soft LF tones recorded at very low levels that are the most exciting qualities of my system, not the thunderous loud notes. My system picks up everything below 20 Hz. It's thrilling. Once you become aware of the infrasonic realm, that it's really there, you can never go back.

You might want to measure, you might be surprised what you see as our ear / brain can be deceiving. ;-)

 

[Elliot G.]

Yes M9, M7, and XVX, latter two in same room with same upstream including Dartzeel 468, and videos of latter two on my channel

thank you but I was really addressing the person that said the 9 was better.

 

[Elliot G.]

I estimate I have about 20dB of boost at and below 20 Hz. About 10 dB at 30 Hz. About 3-4 dB at 40 Hz. You are correct in your belief and understanding. I can hear and feel infrasonic frequencies at between .02 and .2 watts with my Thor/XVX. It's the continuous extremely soft LF tones recorded at very low levels that are the most exciting qualities of my system, not the thunderous loud notes. My system picks up everything below 20 Hz. It's thrilling. Once you become aware of the infrasonic realm, that it's really there, you can never go back.

Charles I don't want to argue but what you are saying is not making sense. This is a 100 fold increase in power and a 10 fold increase in amplitude and its 10 times louder.

 

[Lycurgus]

sbo6, I know that it may be difficult to believe, but over the years I have collected a tremendous number of bass blasts in my music collection, and I appreciate your comment, but take the M9 for example. I would take a bet that the XVX would easily, and I mean easily best it as far as overload resistance. I don't understand why, but it is extremely impervious to overload. On heavy bass, I mean really heavy bass, the woofers hardly even move, even when you are a foot away trying to see at least a little movement. This is simply a fact. I asked Robert Harley if he had ever seen his woofers move (excursion) and the answer was no. I can't speak for other massive speakers and nothing is impossible, in the real world, with any kind of bass blast or extremely heavy low frequency transient, the XVX is essentially indestructible, 100%. I don't think it has much to do with the size of the woofers or the surrounds. The woofers simply have almost zero excursion for all intents and purposes. Perhaps someone might have an explanation. I can attest that without the Thor the XVX will produce amazing bass. There's nothing malfunctioning.

This is why you can run it full range. There is no subwoofer including two Thors, that can keep up with an XVX. You can have any subs you like, run the XVX full range, and never worry about overload. The subwoofer will go long before the XVX.

I agree with SBO6, this makes little sense to me and I would welcome an explanation from the mfr. SPL is created by moving air which comes from speaker excursion. No excursion, no air movement and no SPL at that frequency. The fact that there is little excursion at LF would leave me to believe that the crossovers for the woofers include a HPF to prevent subsonics from reaching (and possibly damaging) the woofers. If you perceive extended bass below the crossover frequency, it could be a form of bass enhancement where harmonics of the LF signal are added back in to fool the ear into thinking there is more bass than there is. These harmonics could be coming from the mid bass driver rather than the woofer so they might not show up in a THD measurement, depending on how they are doing the measuring. This technique also improves bass "clarity" making it sound less warm or distorted in the first place, even though it is in fact adding harmonics.

 

[Charles S]

No worries, no debate, just conversation and differing opinions.

WRT RH comment on the XVX being best, as I stated earlier, that was BEFORE he heard the Magico M9. After hearing the M9 and having already heard the XVX he posted publicly in his M9 review, ""Overall, I have to say that the Magico M9 is the best-sounding loudspeaker I’ve heard. It represents the ultimate realization of the accumulated knowledge and sophisticated technologies Magico has developed over the past 25 years, along with some remarkable innovations that push the M9’s performance to an unprecedented level."

Now, specific to your XVX comment and RH previously believing it was the best before hearing the M9 you say you "know he still thinks this currently" So was he lying in the review? Or lying to you? At the end of the day, this is one person's opinion. I added his comment WRT the M9 as the best speaker because you seem to place much credence on this one person's preferences. I see it as one of many data points; most important to me is via my ears.

Also, WRT your comment, "Ultimately, the M9's woofers are sealed boxes and are not subwoofers. The Thor's woofers are specially designed for subwoofers." - A little education again - A) Subwoofers / woofers can be sealed, ported, OB, etc. They can be part of the mains or separate. The design choice does not negate the purpose. B) Magico has employed M9s with their own subs irrespective of whether one considers the M9's 2: 15" drivers as subs or not.

At the end of the day, I'm glad you're happy with the XVX, I'm sure it's a very good speaker and clearly nothing can dissuade you from being a strong Wilson fanboy, even physics. But reality is - it's simply not in the same league as the much more costly, much larger Magico M9. And Wilson and Magico can add subs, that's irrelevant. I recommend adding subs to any and all speakers, space and budget notwithstanding.

I'll probably hear the M6 and M9 this summer, looking forward to it. Enjoy!

sb06, I genuinely appreciate your comments and absolutely we are friends. Regarding RH's comments concerning the M9, he was extremely positive. However, he never performed a review of the M9. He traveled out to Magico and spent several days in the listening room. It was never in his listening room at his home to undergo a formal review. I converse with Robert because we both own the same speaker. I could give you a very recent quote from an email dated as recent as March 2, 2025 concerning his beliefs about his XVX/Subsonic system. It remains his favorite speaker system and his benchmark. This is a fact. It won't be changing anytime soon. You are very positive about Magico and I appreciate that and respect that.

Let's forget the XVX for a moment. Are you saying that the WAMM Master Chronosonic was designed independently of its subs? It uses the same ActivXO crossover as the XVX, the same chronometer as the XVX, the same woofers and tweeter as the XVX, and the midrange drivers of the XVX are actually superior to the WAMM. The super tweeter is also improved in the XVX. The build quality is identical in the WAMM and XVX and the capacitors are actually improved in the XVX.

If you want to buy the WAMM it comes with Master Chronosonic subs. I have made the point repeatedly that the XVX is specifically designed to reach its full potential with its Subsonics. They are integral to the speaker system. They are not additions in the same sense that other subwoofers are to other speakers, and this includes Titans added to the M9.

The XVX can be sub optimally used as a stand-alone speaker. As such it can fit into smaller rooms that would be impossible for the WAMM. But these are positives, not negatives, and doesn't change the fundamental fact that the XVX was designed to be used with and for Subsonics and Subsonics for the XVX in exactly the same way that the WAMM was designed for Master Chronosonics and Master Chronosonics for the WAMM and will not be sold independently of them.

Personally, I would prefer the XVX/Subsonic system to the WAMM Master Chronosonic system because it has improved drivers. There is zero difference in build quality between the two systems. You believe that Magico speakers are superior to Wilsons. I respect that. I simply said that an XVX was impervious to overload at extreme low frequencies, and you used this statement as an entree concerning your beliefs regarding Wilson speakers, beginning with its woofers, which are identical to the WAMM Master Chronosonics, etc.

Also, we are mature high end afficionados and hopefully friends. Using words like "fanboy" or "nothing can dissuade you, even physics," are I think below you as a person. I always plan to treat you with the utmost respect, and I hope that accord me the same. Personal attacks seldom win arguments.

 

[Charles S]

Charles I don't want to argue but what you are saying is not making sense. This is a 100 fold increase in power and a 10 fold increase in amplitude and its 10 times louder.

Elliot I'm just making estimates. I have a very powerful 30 Hz tone. It is very strong. It has to be boosted significantly. My 25 Hz tone rattles my room and is extremely loud. My 20 Hz tone is bone crushing. Buy "In a Quiet Cathedral" Todd Wilson organist. It's available. Just Google it. It comes right up. If you took a speaker that was anechoically flat at 20 Hz what would be the room gain? It would be very substantial. I have a true 40-foot room, and I get very substantial room gain. One of the most enjoyable qualities of my system is its ability to pick up infrasonic notes at .02-.2 watts that I feel as well as "hear", not loud notes that destroy my room. I know that twice as loud (10 dB) needs 10x the power, but I also know that my 30 Hz note has to be twice as loud at least over flat. And as my system descends into the infrasonic realm the room gain becomes extreme. Human hearing is very insensitive at infrasonic frequencies. A flat frequency response at 16 Hz that includes room gain would be totally inaudible at normal power levels.

 

[sbo6]

sb06, I genuinely appreciate your comments and absolutely we are friends. Regarding RH's comments concerning the M9, he was extremely positive. However, he never performed a review of the M9. He traveled out to Magico and spent several days in the listening room. It was never in his listening room at his home to undergo a formal review. I converse with Robert because we both own the same speaker. I could give you a very recent quote from an email dated as recent as March 2, 2025 concerning his beliefs about his XVX/Subsonic system. It remains his favorite speaker system and his benchmark. This is a fact. It won't be changing anytime soon. You are very positive about Magico and I appreciate that and respect that.

Let's forget the XVX for a moment. Are you saying that the WAMM Master Chronosonic was designed independently of its subs? It uses the same ActivXO crossover as the XVX, the same chronometer as the XVX, the same woofers and tweeter as the XVX, and the midrange drivers of the XVX are actually superior to the WAMM. The super tweeter is also improved in the XVX. The build quality is identical in the WAMM and XVX and the capacitors are actually improved in the XVX.

If you want to buy the WAMM it comes with Master Chronosonic subs. I have made the point repeatedly that the XVX is specifically designed to reach its full potential with its Subsonics. They are integral to the speaker system. They are not additions in the same sense that other subwoofers are to other speakers, and this includes Titans added to the M9.

The XVX can be sub optimally used as a stand-alone speaker. As such it can fit into smaller rooms that would be impossible for the WAMM. But these are positives, not negatives, and doesn't change the fundamental fact that the XVX was designed to be used with and for Subsonics and Subsonics for the XVX in exactly the same way that the WAMM was designed for Master Chronosonics and Master Chronosonics for the WAMM and will not be sold independently of them.

Personally, I would prefer the XVX/Subsonic system to the WAMM Master Chronosonic system because it has improved drivers. There is zero difference in build quality between the two systems. You believe that Magico speakers are superior to Wilsons. I respect that. I simply said that an XVX was impervious to overload at extreme low frequencies, and you used this statement as an entree concerning your beliefs regarding Wilson speakers, beginning with its woofers, which are identical to the WAMM Master Chronosonics, etc.

Also, we are mature high end afficionados and hopefully friends. Using words like "fanboy" or "nothing can dissuade you, even physics," are I think below you as a person. I always plan to treat you with the utmost respect, and I hope that accord me the same. Personal attacks seldom win arguments.

I meant no disrespect, but you are ignoring physics and provide no measurements. You report 20DB of gain below 20Hz which requires an exponential increase in power and driver excursion to do so, all with a 10" and 12" driver. You compare a speaker that has ~40% less woofer surface area with another yet quote extreme unverified examples of bass output other than a song you played. Again - you can't defy physics, this is simply not true. Are you getting significant LF bass with your subs, surely, but your claims are of legends, not reality. Let's leave it at that, agree to disagree, my comments are based on science, yours are based on opinion. Have a good one!

 

[microstrip]

I estimate I have about 20dB of boost at and below 20 Hz. About 10 dB at 30 Hz. About 3-4 dB at 40 Hz.

What are the dimensions of your room and the type of walls?

 

[Charles S]

I meant no disrespect, but you are ignoring physics and provide no measurements. You report 20DB of gain below 20Hz which requires an exponential increase in power and driver excursion to do so, all with a 10" and 12" driver. You compare a speaker that has ~40% less woofer surface area with another yet quote extreme unverified examples of bass output other than a song you played. Again - you can't defy physics, this is simply not true. Are you getting significant LF bass with your subs, surely, but your claims are of legends, not reality. Let's leave it at that, agree to disagree, my comments are based on science, yours are based on opinion. Have a good one!

You ignore room gain and the fact that my Thor has 15" dual spider woofers and huge dual ports. You also ignore Martin Collom's measurements in room of the XVX that I provided you. You ignore the fact the WAMM Chronosonic uses the exact same woofer as the XVX and then you claim that its woofers are not on par with the M9's. This is ridiculous. It really is. The WAMM and XVX are entirely different designs from the M9. Your comments are not based on science but on an unwillingness to acknowledge what I am saying. I see that you made no comment on the fact that the XVX remains RH's favorite speaker and his benchmark after hearing the M9, or that he did not do a formal review of the M9 as you plainly imply.

I remember that he was using an M6, when his XVX arrived. Within one day after hearing it, it was gone and the XVX was his speaker and has remained so for about 4 years. This will not be changing anytime soon. The same cannot be said of the M9. He has the wherewithal to have any speaker he desires, especially considering that he has had an XVX as his benchmark for longer than any other speaker in recent memory. You pretend and imply that RH has replaced the XVX with the M9 as his benchmark. Your pretension is wrong. And "In Quiet Cathedral" is a benchmark album for low bass. I have plenty of time. Why don't you give it a spin on your system and see what happens?