What's the best subwoofer? REL? JL AUDIO? Velodyne? Wilson? Something else?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
Goebel are really pushing the price envelope, especially given you'd likely want a pair of them
Can you remember how much for the big sub?
I think we've comfortably passed those.
Did you see Gian's previous references?
I simply posted it for future readers with an interest. One more view ... fresh.
It's not about the brand per se but instead raw physics/acoustics and implementation, all or certainly some of which Duke with his experience here has covered at earlier junctures in this thread. Where I would differ, it seems, is the bigger scale and, preferably, the particular bass principle necessitated for proper bass/sub playback, or just the one that I cherish the most. Practically this entails going the DIY-route, as few commercial endeavors that I know of, if any, offer subs in this category - especially at prices that aren't available for the über-wealthy only, and even where the dough is limitless you're not likely to find them (where I would also differ with Duke is the chosen cross-over region between the subs and mains, with me preferring a higher XO here).
Scientifically I may come up short trying to validate my preference, but I favor horn-loaded bass/sub variations (Tapped Horns and Front Loaded Horns) to direct radiating alternatives for the very simple reason being that I find they sound more natural; 'natural' in the sense of feeling inherently better integrated, more enveloping/present, layered and smooth/liquid. Horn bass floats and is just "there," totally effortless and unforced at that (in a way that deviates from more or less equally powerful DR installments), and this way it's "inconspicuously omnipresent" insofar the material dictates the existence of lower frequencies. By comparison direct radiators may not necessarily sound strained as such, but you're somehow more overtly aware of the drivers working and making an actual effort reproducing bass, whereas with horns - be that FLH's and perhaps in particular Tapped Horns - the bass simply happens in the room, as if involving the whole space you're in more effectively and effortlessly.
The tech-savvy guys would say bass is bass, irrespective of the specific principle used, and that given proper implementation and an approximation of a similar measured performance quibbling about this that or other way to go about it below the Schroeder frequency is - essentially - potayto, potahto. I'm not here to make rigid claims, but I've heard a variety of well-implemented bass set-ups, direct radiators as well as horns variations, and the same has always shone through: DR's and horns sound different, period, and the pattern or overall generality of the sonic "signature" between them is apparent and quite uniform - measurements and theory be damned.
So, one could say my "mission" here is not to proclaim an absolute winner where bass principles go (let alone brands), but rather to maintain that DR's and horns sound different, and between them my preference is clearly for horns. What I can say unequivocally, irrespective of the bass principle used and as a more absolute statement, is the need for efficiency, size and headroom (assuming proper implementation as an a priori condition), and in effect this means excluding most commercial offerings apart from (the likes of) JTR, PSA, Deep Sea Sounds, Funk Audio and others. DIY is not for all to embark on, but there's a solution: pay others to build it for you, and perhaps loose a dose of vanity along the way. Indeed it boils to proper dimensioning and implementation, and make that horns while you're at it.
What persists though is the main rub being size and inexperience with horns, or anything other high efficiency. Audiophiles in general are MUCH more willing to shelve out large amounts of money than they are incorporating big speakers in their home environment, and that's quite symptomatic of audiophilia at large, so to speak. Perhaps the intolerance to (in this case) subs being BIG is exacerbated by an industry dogma exemplified by reviewers like Robert Harley that would have you believe big subs are a no-go commercially due to the need to excessively dampen or otherwise make rigid the bigger enclosures, hereby making them far too heavy to handle. Well, that's just nonsense and to me sounds like a deliberate attempt to keep people from experiencing what bass from big, efficient subs can sound like. It's the decease of hifi: let's cultivate to death within the confines of a small(er) package with all that entails in luxury finishing and other expensive gadgetry.
Scientifically I may come up short trying to validate my preference, but I favor horn-loaded bass/sub variations (Tapped Horns and Front Loaded Horns) to direct radiating alternatives for the very simple reason being that I find they sound more natural; 'natural' in the sense of feeling inherently better integrated, more enveloping/present, layered and smooth/liquid. Horn bass floats and is just "there," totally effortless and unforced at that (in a way that deviates from more or less equally powerful DR installments), and this way it's "inconspicuously omnipresent" insofar the material dictates the existence of lower frequencies. By comparison direct radiators may not necessarily sound strained as such, but you're somehow more overtly aware of the drivers working and making an actual effort reproducing bass, whereas with horns - be that FLH's and perhaps in particular Tapped Horns - the bass simply happens in the room, as if involving the whole space you're in more effectively and effortlessly.
The tech-savvy guys would say bass is bass, irrespective of the specific principle used, and that given proper implementation and an approximation of a similar measured performance quibbling about this that or other way to go about it below the Schroeder frequency is - essentially - potayto, potahto. I'm not here to make rigid claims, but I've heard a variety of well-implemented bass set-ups, direct radiators as well as horns variations, and the same has always shone through: DR's and horns sound different, period, and the pattern or overall generality of the sonic "signature" between them is apparent and quite uniform - measurements and theory be damned.
So, one could say my "mission" here is not to proclaim an absolute winner where bass principles go (let alone brands), but rather to maintain that DR's and horns sound different, and between them my preference is clearly for horns. What I can say unequivocally, irrespective of the bass principle used and as a more absolute statement, is the need for efficiency, size and headroom (assuming proper implementation as an a priori condition), and in effect this means excluding most commercial offerings apart from (the likes of) JTR, PSA, Deep Sea Sounds, Funk Audio and others. DIY is not for all to embark on, but there's a solution: pay others to build it for you, and perhaps loose a dose of vanity along the way. Indeed it boils to proper dimensioning and implementation, and make that horns while you're at it.
What persists though is the main rub being size and inexperience with horns, or anything other high efficiency. Audiophiles in general are MUCH more willing to shelve out large amounts of money than they are incorporating big speakers in their home environment, and that's quite symptomatic of audiophilia at large, so to speak. Perhaps the intolerance to (in this case) subs being BIG is exacerbated by an industry dogma exemplified by reviewers like Robert Harley that would have you believe big subs are a no-go commercially due to the need to excessively dampen or otherwise make rigid the bigger enclosures, hereby making them far too heavy to handle. Well, that's just nonsense and to me sounds like a deliberate attempt to keep people from experiencing what bass from big, efficient subs can sound like. It's the decease of hifi: let's cultivate to death within the confines of a small(er) package with all that entails in luxury finishing and other expensive gadgetry.
For non-DIY people are there any commercially available, size-no-object, horn-loaded bass subwoofer products which you think sound excellent?
For example, do you like any of the bass horns offered by Avantgarde or Cessaro or Tune Audio?
Or are you suggesting that conventional, large, non-DSP, direct-radiating subwoofers from companies such as Funk and Seaton are sonically great if one has the space to accommodate them in the listening room? Or are you saying that even compared to a giant box containing three or four 15 inch or 18 inch direct-radiating drivers you still prefer the sonic qualities of the horn-loaded bass subwoofers?
For example, do you like any of the bass horns offered by Avantgarde or Cessaro or Tune Audio?
Or are you suggesting that conventional, large, non-DSP, direct-radiating subwoofers from companies such as Funk and Seaton are sonically great if one has the space to accommodate them in the listening room? Or are you saying that even compared to a giant box containing three or four 15 inch or 18 inch direct-radiating drivers you still prefer the sonic qualities of the horn-loaded bass subwoofers?
Last edited:
I think Jagerst.' s post is fascinating...and from what i have heard, I could well believe FLH are THE way to go.
Unfortunately, for me there is a reason why cones are so prevalent...they take up a LOT less space and with today's excellent designs, they accomplish a lot. The FLH I have seen are HUGE. And from a practical standpoint, that volumetric space takes up a lot of living room space.
When I was investigating sub designers (like Nathan Funk of Funk Audio), I noted that a technical collaborator of his on his 18.2 sub also said his favorite deep bass implementation is Front Loaded Horn design...and that the closest measuring and sounding sub to an FLH that he had heard/measured was Nathan's 18.2, a dual-18" sub.
Unfortunately, for me there is a reason why cones are so prevalent...they take up a LOT less space and with today's excellent designs, they accomplish a lot. The FLH I have seen are HUGE. And from a practical standpoint, that volumetric space takes up a lot of living room space.
When I was investigating sub designers (like Nathan Funk of Funk Audio), I noted that a technical collaborator of his on his 18.2 sub also said his favorite deep bass implementation is Front Loaded Horn design...and that the closest measuring and sounding sub to an FLH that he had heard/measured was Nathan's 18.2, a dual-18" sub.
Hi, Ron --
Commercially available horn-loaded subs are rather few and far between, and most horn sub iterations I've heard, and that sounded the best, are DIY. JTR at one point offered the 18" front loaded Orbit Shifter LFU in their repertoire, but presently I can't seem to find the model over at their homepage. Mr. Ricci from data-bass had it on the test bench a few years back with a favorable outcome, and the subs there are tested at full click (measured outside with distortion numbers and all; not a typical "hifi" review as such):
https://data-bass.com/#/systems/5c1d5aff45bca300046104e0?_k=3igvr9
Another very high quality solution, from the pro sector in this case, is Danley Sound Labs TH50, which is a tapped horn. My own pair of DIY tapped horn subs are inspired by TH50's, 15"-loaded as well and with a similar-ish tune at about 22-23Hz. There's also the sibling Danley models DTS-10 and 20 and, if 30-35Hz extension is sufficient, the TH118 (LX). All the Danley's mentioned are tapped horns.
https://www.danleysoundlabs.com/products/subwoofers/tapped-horns/th50/
I've yet to hear the horns by Cessaro, but from what I'm able to assess they're very good - and very expensive. I heard the Avantgarde Trio's though, and to be honest I was less than impressed by their column stacked bass horn sections. They don't go particular deep (as a friend of mine also pointed out referring to a too short horn path), and the upper bass had a slightly hollow and resonant signature. Poor integration, potentially, would only be partially responsible for this. Seriously, DIY options at a fraction of the cost can be made to go deeper and with an overall better performance.
Oh, indeed, without a doubt. I would take those over smaller, perhaps more "hifi"-oriented DR subs any day, even in more moderately sized rooms. It's about the implementation/integration, and the added cone area has them working less with more headroom and lower distortion to boot - which is to say, better bass quality. To my mind, practically speaking, you really can't overdo capacity. It's not overkill but rather (needed) headroom.
That's the next rocket stage, I you would, and yes: I prefer horn-loaded sub iterations over direct radiating alternatives such as suggested by you in regards to driver count and size. The one direct radiating approach I've yet to really confront is Infinite Baffle - with, say, 4 x 18" units per column side - so naturally I'll have to reserve my personal "judgement"/opinion here. There's something about the particular loading of the drivers in a floor-to-ceiling configuration that I'd like to experience, and by god, the IB's potentially go very deep indeed, sometimes even into the single digits with immense force to make these ultra low frequencies worthwhile, provided the source material allows.
From my chair though horn-loaded bass is the ultimate in quality - I certainly haven't heard other bass principles to equal them fully. Others may disagree, but few knows what horn-loaded sub bass really sounds like. The ones craving for ULF will disregard most horn offerings because they'd have to be ginormous to get down that low. However, if you're willing to forego <20Hz and can the tolerate the physical size needed, a bunch of quality developed and assembled horn-loaded subs just sounds awesome.
Thanks, and yes - FLH's are the real deal for sure. I'd urge you to consider tapped horns as well. They're really in the same ballpark (with a few extra "tricks" up their sleeves), but need more careful consideration in regards to the chosen tune and what this means for their upper range response; tapped horns are more upper bandwidth limited compared to FLH's, and so the lower the tune the more you eat away of the upper end. Well-developed TH's have a clean range of up to 2 1/2 octaves, so I'd advice knowing the LF-extension one needs and use fairly steep low- and high-pass filters. The HP filter is for protecting the driver below the tune where it's unloaded.
However, when used properly within their "safe" range TH's are beasts. Contrary to FLH's they have excursion minima at the tune, not above it like FLH's, and thus the cone moves less down low where it's needed, which again translates into lower distortion and an even more effortless reproduction. I agree with others that TH's shake the air more effectively than FLH's (and have a flatter response down low because of the added and synchronized output from the back wave at the mouth area), and they have a beguilingly full and smooth or even liquid "warmth" to the bass. No, not anything fat, flabby, too round or similarly, but it's something one has to hear/feel for him-/herself.
FLH or TH though, both are great, and I can understand why some would feel intimidated by or put off by the fact that TH's need more thought in regards to their implementation, as well as being perhaps a limiting factor in some set-ups. I could easily live with both, make no mistake
As long as one stays with bigger cones (at least 15," and preferably bigger) and a sensitivity not too low, DR's can make for some great (though different) bass as well. To save space with big drivers closed designs with a lot of amp power may be the way to go, and if used in quads could make for a very potent Distributed Array (DBA) set-up, with the added number of subs adding headroom as well.
What is an "excellent design" though? Staying within physics sheer radiation area is part of the excellence, if you ask me, as is implementation - and that vitally so. Furthermore, sensitivity (and at the end of the road 'headroom') is your friend, but this imparts not compromising too severely with size, which is to say: typical, smaller driver/enclosure DR "hifi" subs are at the one extreme, and big horns the other; the middle DR-road here would make for a great result as well.
The thing to consider with horns is that they're force multipliers. A 15" driver in a big 1/4 wave horn feels A LOT bigger (and, again, different) than a 15" direct radiating driver, and may equate into something like 2 x 18" DR drivers, and yet they wouldn't feel the same in their perceived impact. The brilliance of a tapped horn is that the horn itself does the heavy lifting and thus relieves the driver; a few millimetres of cone movement adds up to some astoundingly felt and enveloping bass, and then imagine what it feels like when the cone beats away with half an inch or more. Powerful stuff for sure, but it doesn't really feel like there's an effort involved.
Perhaps the sound of DR bass feels more violent in a sense, more pulsating, ground-based or pushy even when, well.. pushed. Horn bass seems to lift the bass into into the air as if exiting it more wholly. It's a more "floaty" and layered bass, and yet some may prefer the character of DR bass. To each their own.
Interesting anecdote/observation. Nathan is a fine fellow, and his subs are beautiful designs and by all accounts extremely capable. It's great to see the FLH seems to be the reference to the tech. collaborator.
Last edited:
Jaegerst. This is fantastic! Thank you! Yes, my intention in a DR design was to look at a sub with dual 18" cones (opposite firing)...perhaps 2 of them for headroom as you say. It is something that Nathan does design, and then adds a massive amplifier.
That said, if TH could be done in a reasonably manageable footprint, then I would consider it. Your description is certainly compelling.
That said, if TH could be done in a reasonably manageable footprint, then I would consider it. Your description is certainly compelling.
I have NO PROBLEM with the concept that raw power + good acoustics > good acoustics alone!!! My little four-piece subwoofer system is what it is because that happens to be the place on the continuum where I think I can be the most competitive.
I'm definitely not "married" to the bass enclosure principle that I use, which is a juggling of tradeoffs with cost-effectiveness playing a major role.
The reason I prefer to cross over no higher than 80 Hz is so that subs which are fairly far from the main speakers don't pass upper bass/lower mid information loud enough for you to hear. The subs which are near the main speakers can be crossed over as high as you need them to be for good integration with the mains.
Within its low-frequency extension limits the best quality bass I have ever heard from a single sub was from a horn subwoofer (Edgarhorn Seismic). And likewise the best bass I have heard from a pair of speakers came from horns (Classic Audio Reproductions Hartsfields). Not that my experience with horn-loaded bass is all that extensive, but it has been memorable.
Tapped horns are more likely to be practical than are front-loaded horns if we look at size vs low-end extension, and approach the overall system design while taking that bandwidth constraint into account. I don't think I've ever heard tapped horn bass. In your experience, how close does it come to front-loaded horn bass in quality, assuming comparable low-end extension?
Last edited:
Hello, Duke --
Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were somehow opposed to the element of "raw power," but I can see it coming across that way from what I write. It makes sense re: your DBA system, and how its particular physical stature being on the "less intrusive" side of things would make for a more acceptable commercial solution. Even four of them are fairly "stealthy."
That's certainly a natural continuation of the above so not to take up too much space. Many, if not most would only use one or mostly two subs to augment the lows with a driver size comparable to your DBA's, and apart from a smoother response going for an additional two subs for a total of four adds headroom as well.
That was my assumption as well re: the <80Hz cross-over region with the DBA's, and placing the one pair of subs symmetrical near the mains would definitely be an option I'd seek out. Anything approaching 80Hz XO still benefits in regards to relieving both the main speakers and amp(s), insofar the mains are high-passed here. I'm crossing at 83Hz to my pair of tapped horns (would love to add two more of them for an even smoother bass, downright crazy it might seem with regard to the sheer impact they'd produce, but that'd be pushing it in regards to my allotted space here), and with a tune at 22-23Hz that's closing in on their clean upper end response limit, though it seems there's still a little "wiggling room" if needed.
Great to learn of your favorable experience of Mr. Edgar's "Seismic" horn (fitting name, likely!). I seem to remember it's loaded with an 18" unit, right? What aspects of its reproduction of bass made your perceived impressions so memorable?
I'd say you're right about maximizing low-end extension more effectively from TH's vs. FLH within a similar size package. The different horn sub designs I looked at hovered in the 20 cubic feet range, not small by any stretch of the imagination for a home setting, and I wanted to wring out the most of it and the driver used without compromising the quality of reproduction - if it even meant putting it into risk with a different approach than a FLH.
That's difficult to assess as different acoustic factors come into play to determine the specific nature of bass here. From what I can hear though they have a rather similar way to envelope and make present the bass in a listening environment, added to a particular smoothness and being very effortless sounding. Where TH's deviate sonically to FLH's is that they lend a bit more visceral feel to the bass (i.e.: they shake the air more), they may be ever so slightly warmer sounding, and the very low end has a more freed, relaxed and fuller "roll" to it compared to a FLH (listen to the take-off scene on the Blu-ray of 'Apollo 11' to get a bearing on this - you can actually feel the large reverberating space around you as those 5 roaring rockets makes the air "crack"). The sheer level of detail, insight and smooth "coolness" of bass presentation from a TH is quite unique, I find.
Last edited:
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
These are the latest product from Gobel called the Divin Sovereign. 18 inch driver, 2600 watt power amp, German made, controllable from your seat via the browser on your phone or tablet, multiple presets and super clean and fast,,,fast...fast
I have other brands this is a SUB ABOVE hahaha ( not the sandwich) Now shipping and available for audition
I have other brands this is a SUB ABOVE hahaha ( not the sandwich) Now shipping and available for audition
This one the best i have heard betonart audio no bassreflex.very clean fast deep bass.
betonart-audio.de
TYREXX Mega Subwoofer - 2 x 21" Zoll - 260 kg Carbonbeton
TYREXX - Subwoofer System der Superlative mit bis zu 5000 Watt Systemleistung - VERSCHREIBUNGSPFLICHTIG !
betonart-audio.de
Yes, really good high efficiency 98db/ 1 watt woofer. Enough power for 40db dynamic impulse. not many subs can do that.
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
I am not sure that the Aeon subs are better, they should be, but in the situation that these are being used, with the speakers they are being used with and at the price point the Sovereign's are just fantastic. If you own a great speaker and want to make it sound even better these subs will accomplish that. I have nothing bad to say about REL or JL as these are both excellent but this is a step above in both performance, fit , finish, ease of use and of course sound. They also cost more !
Similar threads
