Subwoofer review summary page ... From the AVS forum

[zaniix]

Craig,

Do you have any plans to test the SVS tube subs like the 25-31PCI? I am going to buy one ported to 20hz and just wonder where it will sit in the chart. I would expect it to be pretty close to the PB12-NSD. Am I way off in my thinking?

[craigsub]

Zaniix - Sorry, I missed your post. Let's see what happens over the next few months.

[REVolution]

Craig,

What would your thoughts be on the following, since you've heard all but one...

DUAL Ed A2-300's (non co-located)
VS
Single MFW-15 or Single Epik Knight or Single Ed A5-350 (550W)

Thanks!

BTW, can't wait to order a couple scamps!

[Larry7995]

Elemental Designs A7-900 ($2200 ID/SI): 116 points (63-53)
Epik Conquest ($1599 ID): 112 points (60-52)
SVS PB13-Ultra ($1499 ID): 109 points (57-52)
Epik Castle ($999 ID): 109 points (59-50)
AV123 MFW-15 Duals: 109 points (56-53) (note, duals were tested as duals are offered as a package)

Where does the Seaton Sound Submersive fit in here?

[m-fine]

Originally Posted by Larry7995

Elemental Designs A7-900 ($2200 ID/SI): 116 points (63-53)
Epik Conquest ($1599 ID): 112 points (60-52)
SVS PB13-Ultra ($1499 ID): 109 points (57-52)
Epik Castle ($999 ID): 109 points (59-50)
AV123 MFW-15 Duals: 109 points (56-53) (note, duals were tested as duals are offered as a package)

Where does the Seaton Sound Submersive fit in here?

It most certainly beats a pair of MFW-15's in all respects (except price) and I would highly doubt it has anything to fear from the conquest. I expect the Sasquatch to also beat the 109 and 112 pointers (I forecast 60/53 to 62/54 if the same test was done)

The big ED would be the closest competition, but in reality they are not aimed at the same audience. If you are going to put it in your garage to provide bass for your outdoor system, the ED is the easy pick. The SubMersive is only a couple of inches bigger than an MFW, and gets its incredible extension from coupling with room gain, so it goes better in an indoor theater.

Drawing from comparisons, since I, and no one I know has heard both (ED and SM) side by side or in a similar environment, the SubMersive should edge out the MFW-15's in music score and since they match the ED we can infer the SubMersive is at least a 53 in music and likely better. In room it will go deeper for HT than any sub on the list although the outdoor 20 hz max output will be lower. The reality is if you put your sub in room and EQ it, you will need to cut the 20hz range on the big subs due to room gain anyway, but there is still some benefit from having headroom. I really do not know enough about how Craig's scale weighed the different qualities of HT to figure out how he would score the SubMersive, but my best guess would be in the 59-63 range. Maybe higher if slam in the upper bass and DEEP extension were weighted heavier than max output in the 16-25 hz range but the ED is no slouch and I believe Craig focuses on the 15-100hz range and sees little benefit to the 8-15 capabilities (we need to convert him some time but that is another task/topic). The size of the room used could also impact the results, with the SubMersive doing better as the room gets below 4000-5000 cuft.

[mojomike]

Originally Posted by m-fine

It most certainly beats a pair of MFW-15's in all respects (except price) and I would highly doubt it has anything to fear from the conquest.

How can you infer this without actually doing any comparisons? You're making a whole lot of assumptions about several dissimilar subs. Also, if the SM can match a Conquest, then why is it frequently needed in multiples? I never hear of a Conquest needed in multiples. Just a thought.

[m-fine]

Originally Posted by mojomike

How can you infer this without actually doing any comparisons? You're making a whole lot of assumptions about several dissimilar subs. Also, if the SM can match a Conquest, then why is it frequently needed in multiples? I never hear of a Conquest needed in multiples. Just a thought.

The comparo between the MFW-15 pair and the SubMersive has been made many times by Mark Seaton who designed both. I own a SM and have heard the MFW's, both solutions are impressive but if price was the same the SubMersive would be a no brainer. Unfortuneately the price is double.

The SubMersive is not "needed" in multiples, but like any sub in a real room there are benefits to multiples, especially in smoother room response and less seat to seat variation, assuming the subs are not co-located. You also have to look at the audience for the two subs. Seaton Sound is aimed more at people like Art Sonnenborn with all out theaters and professional installs. The Conquest is directed at the AVS crowd looking to maximiz their budgets. The exception to not "needing" multiples of SubMersives would be in a very large room where multiple SubMersives would be needed to get the extension in absence of the room gain of a normal theater. A sub could (and often are) designed to have higher output in the lower frequencies, but these subs in turn need the use of EQ to keep them from being bloated in most rooms. Obviously matching a sub to your situation makes a difference. Based on what I know about Craigs testing and his room, I would expect a single SubMersive to compare favorably to a single conquest. Sure I could be wrong, but it is hardly a random guess.

I think I was pretty clear about what assumptions I made and what comparisons I used. It was meant to help someone get a feel for where the sub would place since Craig and his team will no longer be doing any more ratings. Obviously I have my own biases and opinions on what is important, and my views do not perfectly allign with Craigs or for that matter anyone elses, but hopefully by offering what I do know and what I gather through conjecture, I hope I can help guide someone on which sub they might prefer.

[m-fine]

BTW, all of this illustrates the dangers of summing up complex qualities in a simple score or ranking.

It would great if you could take you sub budget, look at a list and simply pick out the highest rated sub you can afford. It does not work that way. Nor can you graph score per dollar or anything like that.

Craigs scores are a relative assesment based on the opinions of a handful of people who heard all of the subs in the same room (but not all at the same time) with some blind A/B comparisons. The results are influenced by the room, the material, the proceedure and EQ'ing, and by the personal tastes of the testers. Between the points and the text review (which too many people ignore) you can gather that 2 MFW's were prefered for music (tighter more tactile) over the Castle, but they felt the castle dug deeper in some of the movie scenes. It is left to the reader to decide 1) how much they agree/disagree with the score criteria and the results, and 2) which one of the two would likely be better for their preferences and situation. If you search enough of Craig's postings, you will find examples where his personal tastes are not in 100% alignment with the raw score results. Anyone thinking about buying something based solely on scores should mull that one over carefully.

[Nuance]

I too am going to "guesstimate" that the Sasquatch will fall right between the Conquest and the A7-900.

[Larry7995]

I appreciate the info, several really good sub options around $2000 lately and I am having trouble making up my mind.