2. speakers
  3. 1007327923

Subwoofer ratings by Widescreen Review mag

This forum receives a number of inquiries about "which subwoofer should I buy". There are a number of technical and practical (size, cost, etc.) issues which must be considered by anyone looking for a good subwoofer, but I don't intend to try to cover those considerations here.

Widescreen Review magazine conducted a series of subwoofer evaluations between 1997 and 2000 (which obviously leaves out some of the most recent models). I thought that readers might find a list of the "top twelve" subs rated by WR to be a useful starting point when contemplating the purchase of a new/used subwoofer. You will note that this list does not include the REL brand, since none of them were reviewed in this group of articles. The reviews, however, did include the Sunfire "True Subwoofer" Mk 2, which finished in the middle of the pack of the 50 subs.

The review articles rated 50 subwoofers for 12 factors, and scored them from 5 (highest) to 1 (lowest) on each factor. The rated factors were: music (ability to faithfull reproduce music); effects (ability to faithfully reproduce LFE); impact; tonal definition; overhang (tight vs. flabby bass, with tight being the desired property); rhythm and pace; midrange coloration; enclosure integrity; distress (how the sub performed under severe stress); subjective deep bass; ability to play at 105db or louder at 35 Hz; and ability to reproduce 25 Hz frequencies cleanly.

The highest possible score for a subwoofer would be a perfect 5.0. The subs are listed below, in alphabetical order:

Only one subwoofer had a perfect 5.0 score:
1. Linn AV 5150 (price: $4200)

The best group of subs had nearly perfect scores, with only a few factors rated less than 5, and none lower than 4.0. When looking at the average score, you should also note the price when making comparisons:
1. Bag End Infra-18: average = 4.92 ($2400-2900, depending on finish)
2. B&W ASW4000: average = 4.71 ($3000)
3. Earthquake SuperNova Millenium 15: average = 4.71 ($2000)
4. Energy ES-18XL: average = 4.875 ($1700)
5. Mirage BPS-210: average = 4.92 ($1700)
6. Mirage BSP-400: average = 4.71 ($1300)
7. M&K MX-5000THX: average = 4.83 ($2500)
8. M&K MX-700: average = 4.67 ($1400)
9. Vandersteen 2Wq: average = 4.83 ($1300) (this sub is specifically intended to be used in pairs, which would increase its average score to that of V2W)
10. Vandersteen V2W: average = 4.96 ($1300)
sdcampbell
gregm
3,021 posts
 
Sean, and the address is... www.audioperfectionist.com/
Sd: Thanks from me too for posting the SWoofer info!
Cheers!
sdcampbell OP
2,136 posts
 
To make my final post on this thread, I'll respond to Danheather's request to know if there were any "surprises" in the WR reviews. Yes, to be honest, I was surprised that the Velodyne models that were tested did not earn high marks. I always had the impression, based on what I'd heard, that Velodynes were among the best of the best. WR tested the F-1800R ($2000) and it got fairly average marks on the first sample tested (4.13). WR then re-tested this model using another sample from the manufacturer, and it earned an average score of 4.55. The other Velodyne model that was tested was the HGS-12 ($2000), which earned an average score of 4.18.

The other two subs which were rated fairly highly were not familiar to me: the Triad In-Room Platinum ($2000), which earned an average score of 4.5; and the Polk PSW650 ($769), which earned an average score of 4.36.

If WR mag reviews any of the subs that are of interest, based on the posts above (such as REL), I'll insert a follow-up thread in the discussions forum.
steel
6 posts
 
SD,

You did a nice job compiling all those scores. I think the special sub issue of Widescreen Review is a good place to start when one is thinking about buying a subwoofer—it contains a lot of information. However, people should keep in mind that the reviewer, Richard Hardesty, like any reviewer, has very specific preferences. He admits that he has such preferences, and warns readers that they may have different preferences. In other words, the reviews are just one person's opinion.

For instance, he generally prefers sealed enclosures over ported ones, especially for music. He also strongly recommends two smaller subs in stereo over one large sub using a mono signal. Those are valid preferences--but not everyone shares them. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend a small sub simply because it is easy and cost effective to add a second one and have a stereo set-up. You could very well end up with two subs that have limited output and are easy to bottom out. I also prefer my ported sub over my audiophile sealed sub hands down, for both music and movies. Those are my preferences but who cares? The point is you should always listen and decide for yourself what design works best for you.

Anyway, the sub issue does encourage buyers to listen more critically to subwoofers, and it provides criteria by which to judge them. That’s a good thing. I just think you have to keep the ratings in perspective.
sdcampbell OP
2,136 posts
 
Steel: I absolutely agree with your comments. Hardesty does have a stated preference for subs with sealed enclosures -- one which I happen to share, since my preference is for music over LFE/HT applications. Ultimately, it's a matter of individual taste, and any sub should be auditioned in the home listening environment if at all possible, since the way a sub loads the room will vary from sub to sub, and room to room (event the same sub in the same room will load differently when you move it as little as 6 inches).
justacoder
66 posts
 
A nice compilation of HT subwoofer info from widescreen and elsewhere can be found at:

http://members.telocity.com/eriko/bass/wsr_sub_comparison.html

google rules!
More to discover