Descent vs Descent i vs Depth i

I know the Descent i is better then the Depth i, but is the Descent NOT-i better then the Depth i?

Where does the abyss fit in to all this?

I got Vistas on the way. Which sub should I be trying to pickup? I want hometheater kick you in the gut bass, but tight and musical =D

I can't afford Descent i so it is between a descent, perhaps a depth i, and maybe 2x abyss.

Any idea of their relative merits?

akm3,

I would think the Depth would be enough. It has to do with room volume as well as how much air you are pushing to get that "ooomph". You may be able to find two used Depths too not that the "i" version is out.

The Depth i has more power basically than the non i version. The Decent is bigger, has bigger drivers and more power. To say one is better is a tough argument to win.

Jeff

Descent >> Depth-i > Depth.

2 depths ~= 1 descent, though room modes and 30Hz + output likely favor the depths, and depth of output favors the descent.


The 3 10" woofers is almost equivalent to double the output of the 3 8" woofers in the depths. I also think the grill on the depth-i is gag-inducing. I liked the look of the older ones better.


Hopefully that's helpful in your search. The old versions for what they're going for on audiogon are a major steal. MUCH better value than the new ones, imo.

I like the Depth because . . . .

with smaller drivers, I find the Depth has a little bit better (faster) transient response than the Descent. Need more poop, get two Depths

That shouldn't matter...in fact it should be just the opposite, since the larger driver has to move half as far to get the same output. I'm not sure what inductance looks like for the different drivers...but that should have more of an effect.

I got a Descent sub to pair with some Ascents 4 years ago, and I was very happy with it. With its three separate speakers its quite fast and I thought was very musical, and IMO definitely gives all the 'boom' you asked about for HT. I've never tried the Descent i or Depth, so I can't give you any comparisons, but I thought the Descent was much more musical than the Velodyne sub I replaced.

akm3,

The newer "i" subs are better than their predecessors in the following areas: more advanced servos, better drivers, more advanced amps, more power, more precision, better ergonomics (controls on top etc.), better integration and setup flexibility (simultaneous LFE and 2-channel connection etc.), better looking (more wood finish on top, solid grills versus cloth etc.) and optional connectivity with the future CLX speaker. These subs are much better than the ones they replace. The non - “i” versions are very good subs in their own right though, but ML made available a replacement for very good reasons.

I just went through the whole decision process in getting a sub and I thought the extra money for the new Depth i was well worth it. With Vantages or Vistas it is a no brainer especially with the advancements noted above; the Depth i 8” woofers integrate very well, the matching wood and the hard grills match aesthetically better.

You indicated you want “home theater kick you in the gut bass, but tight and musical”, then the Depth i is your ticket. I found it more than rewarding the bass required for HT and it “sings” wonderfully with my Vantages and rest assured an awesome integrated fit with your Vistas. That sub is made for our speakers. I can’t think of a better selection unless you have a big super-sized room, then the Descent i or two Depth i’s may be better. I auditioned the regular Descent extensively and I like the Depth i better. Keep in mind I had my choice of any sub and I am very pleased with the new Depth i.

Since you have Vistas the Depth i will be a better fit than the Abyss. The Abyss won’t supplement the “tight and musical” requirement as well, but would probably just fit your HT needs ok. I tried subs that were cheaper, but was always disappointed until I tried the Depth i in my system.


IWalker,

I can’t believe my sub makes you puke! I think the solid grill is superior in every way to the old cloth covers. They hold up stronger; they look cool being able to see the woofer behind it. The looks are great next to the Vantage/Vista since the grills are made the same and look just a like.

I agree with nsgarch that the Depth i has a faster transient response than the Descent or i version. I talked with the ML Technical Reps. and some preferred the Depth i for that same reason.

Brad

yeah, ugh...the grill really did nothing for me. (then again, I have a cherry veneered box...so it's a VERY different look) I'm sure there's a lot better about it, I'm just not a big fan of the aesthetics. I'm sure the i version is better than the old version...but I wonder in a true AB test, how easily someone could tell the difference...and with the massive price differnce (IE you can get an old descent for the price of a new depth i) if it's worth it. I haven't ever had the opportunity to do the test for myself...but I trust your judgement, since you have. I also believe that the depth could sound faster...but the cone size should have nothing to do with that...theoretically.

There are always subjective things, such as, less deep bass will often give the impression of greater "speed" ... as will a smaller bass presence in general...so unless the depth and descent were calibrated equally...it's not fair to AB against each other without calibrating them against a standard. Very interesting observations though!

Are you up for the yet to be finalized Charlotte meet sometime in the July timeframe? It'd be nice to meet everyone in the area! I think we're up to at least 4 at this point, and hopefully I'll have an interesting project or two complete by then that I can share, and get input for.

But it does

IWalker said:

That shouldn't matter...in fact it should be just the opposite, since the larger driver has to move half as far to get the same output. I'm not sure what inductance looks like for the different drivers...but that should have more of an effect.

Click to expand...

A smaller dia. sub presents less electrical reactance and physical inertia to the amp, so is more easily able to respond to the signal. True, it moves less air but that's why you might need two Depths to produce the same SPL as one Descent. It's also the reason (low inertia and no reactance) that the Soundlab's electostatic bass panels sound so awsome -- the world's best bass IMO. (I never EVER heard of anyone using a sub with a Soundlab.)

Anyway, this is not a plug for Soundlab, just an example. I love my CLS/Depth combo, and have no upgrade plans

You said money was an issue, so I would be looking at the regular Descent. That is one of THE BEST DEALS on the use market right now. Sometimes you can get them for as little as $1200! That is pretty dang good! Maybe less than that. Trust me you WON'T be disappointed w/ the Descent, it is an AWESOME sub and in HT mode and shake your WHOLE HOUSE DOWN! Just amazing! I agree that asthetically the "i" would be a better choice, but get a Descent now, keep saving and then sell you Descent and get a Descent i... you will probably be able to get almost all your money back on the regular Descent and maybe by the time you save some more money you will be able to find a used Descent i! :rocker:

http://www.audioshopper.com/sdlab.htm

This person was disassatisfied with the bass and is thinking of running an HSU with it.

FYI.

Thanks for everyones input so far! I think I will keep an eye out for a great deal on either a descent or depth i, whichever comes first.

-Allen

nsgarch said:

A smaller dia. sub presents less electrical reactance and physical inertia to the amp, so is more easily able to respond to the signal. True, it moves less air but that's why you might need two Depths to produce the same SPL as one Descent. It's also the reason (low inertia and no reactance) that the Soundlab's electostatic bass panels sound so awsome -- the world's best bass IMO. (I never EVER heard of anyone using a sub with a Soundlab.)

Anyway, this is not a plug for Soundlab, just an example. I love my CLS/Depth combo, and have no upgrade plans

Click to expand...

This goes back to the concept/myth of "fast" bass.

"The first thing we must know is that bass itself is not particularly fast. Virtually any woofer, even those with heavy cones can easily reproduce bass frequencies with every scintilla of speed present in that bass. So don’t buy a bunch of baloney about low-mass woofer cones leading to "high-speed bass" -- it just isn’t going to happen. If the woofer can reproduce 40Hz with low distortion, how fast the woofer starts is almost irrelevant (within reason of course). It only needs to accelerate fast enough to match the rise time of 40Hz at the fastest point along a 40Hz sine wave. If the woofer can do that, it is going as fast as it needs to in order to be as fast as fast can be -- at 40Hz. The woofer cone does not need to be able to accelerate at 20kHz velocities in order to produce instantaneous 40Hz energy and if you could build a woofer that "fast," 40Hz would sound exactly the same through a "slow" woofer."

http://www.soundstage.com/maxdb/maxdb061999.htm


There's a much more comprehensive article on the subject...but I can't seem to find it right now. But that's essentially what I was getting at. The other article states that inductance is the primary piece that effects the speed at which the signal is transferred to the cone...so it what to look for to get "faster" bass.

I could be wrong...I just read a bunch of stuff, and try to fit it together in my head...but this is how I understand things at this point. Sorry for being vague before!

IWalker said:

This goes back to the concept/myth of "fast" bass.

"The first thing we must know is that bass itself is not particularly fast. Virtually any woofer, even those with heavy cones can easily reproduce bass frequencies with every scintilla of speed present in that bass. So don’t buy a bunch of baloney about low-mass woofer cones leading to "high-speed bass" -- it just isn’t going to happen. If the woofer can reproduce 40Hz with low distortion, how fast the woofer starts is almost irrelevant (within reason of course). It only needs to accelerate fast enough to match the rise time of 40Hz at the fastest point along a 40Hz sine wave. If the woofer can do that, it is going as fast as it needs to in order to be as fast as fast can be -- at 40Hz. The woofer cone does not need to be able to accelerate at 20kHz velocities in order to produce instantaneous 40Hz energy and if you could build a woofer that "fast," 40Hz would sound exactly the same through a "slow" woofer."

http://www.soundstage.com/maxdb/maxdb061999.htm


There's a much more comprehensive article on the subject...but I can't seem to find it right now. But that's essentially what I was getting at. The other article states that inductance is the primary piece that effects the speed at which the signal is transferred to the cone...so it what to look for to get "faster" bass.

I could be wrong...I just read a bunch of stuff, and try to fit it together in my head...but this is how I understand things at this point. Sorry for being vague before!

Click to expand...

That may be true at 40hz, but the "fastness" and "matching" bass to co-incide with panel matching would be the 70, 80, 100, 120hz bass.

I'm not saying your wrong, because what you posted was news to me; I'm asking if the principle holds true at those higher frequencies?

-Allen

I wasn't clear . . . . .

IWalker said:

This goes back to the concept/myth of "fast" bass.

"The first thing we must know is that bass itself is not particularly fast. Virtually any woofer, even those with heavy cones can easily reproduce bass frequencies with every scintilla of speed present in that bass. So don’t buy a bunch of baloney about low-mass woofer cones leading to "high-speed bass" -- it just isn’t going to happen. If the woofer can reproduce 40Hz with low distortion, how fast the woofer starts is almost irrelevant (within reason of course). It only needs to accelerate fast enough to match the rise time of 40Hz at the fastest point along a 40Hz sine wave. If the woofer can do that, it is going as fast as it needs to in order to be as fast as fast can be -- at 40Hz. The woofer cone does not need to be able to accelerate at 20kHz velocities in order to produce instantaneous 40Hz energy and if you could build a woofer that "fast," 40Hz would sound exactly the same through a "slow" woofer."

http://www.soundstage.com/maxdb/maxdb061999.htm


There's a much more comprehensive article on the subject...but I can't seem to find it right now. But that's essentially what I was getting at. The other article states that inductance is the primary piece that effects the speed at which the signal is transferred to the cone...so it what to look for to get "faster" bass.

I could be wrong...I just read a bunch of stuff, and try to fit it together in my head...but this is how I understand things at this point. Sorry for being vague before!

Click to expand...

The word FAST, with respect to low frequency driver performance, has nothing to do with a moving cone making a sound, and everything to do with the driver's characteristics when it must reverse direction (not making a sound). That is the moment of truth. In theory, it should be able to stop and reverse direction instantly and at the same velocity, as determined by the signal's amplitude, because that's what an electrical audio signal does. In practice of course, it's not possible, but the ability to approach this ideal translates into cleaner bass, detailed, visceral bass -- not louder bass or lower bass. The cone isn't even moving at that instant -- it's not transducing (moving any air.) So rise times, acceleration, etc., really have nothing to do with the characteristic of FAST. Fast is fast at any frequency. It's just harder to achieve at low frequencies because a larger mass has to be precisely controlled.

PS -- when I mentioned the bass a Soundlab can produce, I was referring to the A-1 (and now the U-1) which go down to 24/28Hz and not the Millenium Series. If you wanna play, you gotta pay!

Hey IW,

Yes beauty is in the eye of the beholder and this business is very subjective.

I'm up on the meet and I just saw the discussion in the regional meetings area. I will follow the thread there.

Nagarch,

Nice discussion on bass.

Brad

akm3 said:

That may be true at 40hz, but the "fastness" and "matching" bass to co-incide with panel matching would be the 70, 80, 100, 120hz bass.

I'm not saying your wrong, because what you posted was news to me; I'm asking if the principle holds true at those higher frequencies?

-Allen

Click to expand...

Sorry...I'll try to find this other article...but I really don't know enough to discuss this in depth...in theory though, yes.

nsgarch said:

The word FAST, with respect to low frequency driver performance, has nothing to do with a moving cone making a sound, and everything to do with the driver's characteristics when it must reverse direction (not making a sound). That is the moment of truth. In theory, it should be able to stop and reverse direction instantly and at the same velocity, as determined by the signal's amplitude, because that's what an electrical audio signal does. In practice of course, it's not possible, but the ability to approach this ideal translates into cleaner bass, detailed, visceral bass -- not louder bass or lower bass. The cone isn't even moving at that instant -- it's not transducing (moving any air.) So rise times, acceleration, etc., really have nothing to do with the characteristic of FAST. Fast is fast at any frequency. It's just harder to achieve at low frequencies because a larger mass has to be precisely controlled.

PS -- when I mentioned the bass a Soundlab can produce, I was referring to the A-1 (and now the U-1) which go down to 24/28Hz and not the Millenium Series. If you wanna play, you gotta pay!

Click to expand...

That has more to do with the voice coil inductance (Le) than with the mass or area of the cone, for the reason I stated before...that an 8" cone has to be moving a lot faster to cover twice the distance as the 10" for the same output at the same frequency. that 8" cone has just as much momentum to reverse as the 10" cone does.

I found it!

http://www.adireaudio.com/Files/WooferSpeed.pdf

Very interesting article.

Caerus said:

Hey IW,

Yes beauty is in the eye of the beholder and this business is very subjective.

I'm up on the meet and I just saw the discussion in the regional meetings area. I will follow the thread there.

Nagarch,

Nice discussion on bass.

Brad

Click to expand...

It is indeed. From a technical standpoint I think it's beautiful I think in general it's a great looking sub...I just can't stand the grill in the front.

Glad to hear you're up for the meet!

again

IWalker said:

That has more to do with the voice coil inductance (Le) than with the mass or area of the cone, for the reason I stated before...that an 8" cone has to be moving a lot faster to cover twice the distance as the 10" for the same output at the same frequency. that 8" cone has just as much momentum to reverse as the 10" cone does.

Click to expand...

Except the 8" cone doesn't need to cover twice the distance to produce the same frequency, and anyway, as I said, none of this has anything to do with cone motion and only with the ability of the transducer's diaphragm (whatever it's made of) to change direction and velocity instantly (or as close to instantly as possible.)