SVS pc13 ultra vs Descent i?

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

hifiaudio2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
Location
Nashville, TN
Right now I have a pair of Summits and one SVS pc13ultra - the cylinder version of their sub. I have been considering getting a second, or selling the one I have and getting two Descent i's (used). I am pretty happy with the SVS, but havent had other "high end" subs in my room to compare. My goal is to find the "fastest" sub that will blend with my Summits, but more importantly to last for the long haul as I have a plan/goal to upgrade to the CLX in the coming year. So with the need to integrate that last bass octave with super fast bass from the CLX, would I likely be OK with the SVS, or should I be searching for a Descent i or even another sub?

My budget for subs would be about what Descent i's go for used... I guess around $1800 or so each? I would start with one and grow it...

My room is 17' x 29' x 9ft H
 
I'd highly recommend putting your ears on a JL Audio sub. My Spires with a pair of 112's is quite a combination. You can be a basshead or adjust them to the sublime. Either way, they will keep up with an ESL.

I also plan on going to the CLX, but not for a couple years. I have no room for them at this point. Jeff (Tonepub) is using a Gotham, maybe two by now with his CLX if I'm not mistaken. They can keep up with ML.

Gordon
 
I would agree with Gordon's recommendation. I went with 2 Descent i subs because of budget; 2 Gothams would provide a far superior listening (and feeling) environment. However, with a Bluebook used average of around $8300 each, they may be out of your price range also.

REL Studio III or Stentor III would also be considerations, with used prices for the former being about $4800 and for the latter, $2700.

Closest to your stated price range, check out the Aerial Acoustics SW-12 (around $2500 used) and compare their performance with the Descent i.

I believe all products are still current in their respective lines, so they may be available for you to audition in your area.

Good Luck!

Chris
 
There is no such thing as "FAST" or "SLOW" bass. Wish people would quit using this wording to describe proper or improper bass response. Also, size of drivers does not insure you will get better or worse bass response, it is how it is implemented.

IMO the ML Descent outperforms the Aerial or REL as I have heard both.

The JL Audio Subs are a superb product to consider along with the Descent.

But if you are happy with your SVS, try to audition to see if other manufactures sound better to you. Biggest thing with bass is placement, room treatments, and bass EQ.
 
I happen to own a PC 13 Ultra and have had it side by side with the JL 113 sub and can tell you that IMHO the JL is better of the two in both power and accuracy; however, not enough to justify the additional investment. Once again this is my opinion based on my application (HT) and bank account, and YMMV. I do think, based on listening to different systems in different locations with different media that the PC 13 Ultra is a more powerful sub than the Descent, and the two are nearly the same accuracy even though they have slightly different tonal characteristics.

If I were using CLX's I would probably go with a seconf PC Ultra just because those cylinders would look very cool in the vacinity of the CLC panels.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as "FAST" or "SLOW" bass. Wish people would quit using this wording to describe proper or improper bass response. Also, size of drivers does not insure you will get better or worse bass response, it is how it is implemented.

IMO the ML Descent outperforms the Aerial or REL as I have heard both.

The JL Audio Subs are a superb product to consider along with the Descent.

But if you are happy with your SVS, try to audition to see if other manufactures sound better to you. Biggest thing with bass is placement, room treatments, and bass EQ.

I don't know if I am understanding you correctly. But... I think most people mean the response of speaker at the low end. Smaller speakers, if well engineered, tend to respond faster providing more defined bass. No the bass is not fast, the speaker responds faster.
 
I don't know if I am understanding you correctly. But... I think most people mean the response of speaker at the low end. Smaller speakers, if well engineered, tend to respond faster providing more defined bass. No the bass is not fast, the speaker responds faster.
So you are saying that a smaller woofer driver say 10" can provide better (more accurate) bass than a 12" or 15" driver?

I agree with the engineering though.....I have heard as many bad 10" as 12" as 15" setups.

Velocity and frequency aren't interchangeable terms. Poor sounding bass is usually spoken as slow bass, where it should be noted as poor sounding bass, and not "speed" related.

Plenty of stuff out on the net on woofer size, mass, etc as it relates to accurate low end reproduction.
 
Last edited:
I have both speakers, a SVS PB13 Utlra in my HT system which is an all ML speaker system with the exception of the SVS and it has outstanding bass for HT applications. I have used it for some MCH music as well and it sounds very good for that as well.

With that said, I have a Descent i mated with my CLXs in a 5.1 music only system and with a little work the Descent i can be made to match up with the CLXs and just plain disappear with the CLXs, which is I think the best way to do it, IMHO. The Descent i has a special card that helps it to match the CLX and it really seams to work. That is not to say that room treatments and placement are not important either.

I think having ML develop the Descent i and the CLX together is worth something all by itself, but that might just be me.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top