SVS Readies First Ultra Full-Range Speakers

[Towen7]

:text-link:


The Ultra lineup consists of the SVS Ultra Tower at $1,999/pair, SVS Ultra Bookshelf at $999/pair, SVS Ultra Center at $699, and SVS Ultra Surround at $1,199/pair. They begin shipping in November but will be demonstrated this weekend during the Rocky Mountain Audiofest in Denver.

...

The company also plans to sell online through Huppins’ OneCall operation.

 

[MatthewB]

Hmmm think SVS will loan Bats a pair for the next gtg.

 

[Yesfan70]

Why are dipole speakers still being paired with 5.1/7.1 packages? We have had full range discrete surround channels for years now, yet range limited out of phase speakers are still pushed in these surround speaker packages.

 

[Towen7]

For the same reason that horizontal CCs with the tweeter and mids on the same axis are pushed. Because speaker manufacturers can only make money if people buy their speakers. And as long as people think that a dipole is the best solution and is what they want...

 

[Flint]

This is what their press release said:

The new speakers are promoted as offering “cost-no-object performance at a price that the average audio consumer can afford,” the company contended. “The result is a level of performance that even drastically more expensive loudspeakers cannot match.”

Sorry... that cannot make sense to any logical consumer. The rule of "cost-no-object" inherently means that cost was not a consideration in achieving the best performance. Then it says the speakers are sold "at a price the... consumer can afford." That simply makes no sense at all and whoever wrote or said that is clearly not very good with language.

These may be good speakers. We won't know until we experience them firsthand. But the language of this statement wreaks of snake-oil sales and turns my stomach.

At least the center channel attempts to addess the lobing issue with a vertically arranged midrange and tweeter. That said the center has a different driver arrangement than the left & right tower speakers, which means the sonic signature in the room is not going to be as close to perfectly matched as it could be.

 

[Flint]

The article also talks about some "proprietary" technology:

The Ultra Tower also features a proprietary ForceFactor woofer array in which two 8-inch drivers are horizontally opposed to eliminate cabinet vibrations and thus reduce distortion and deliver cleaner, tighter bass response, the company said.

Umm... Isn't that the same technology Pioneer and others employed in the 1980s. In fact, if I recall correctly, the Pioneer solution went even further by incorporating a metal rod between the two opposing woofers which stablized them even more and virtually eliminated all front to rear force when operating.

 

[Haywood]

The article also talks about some "proprietary" technology:

The Ultra Tower also features a proprietary ForceFactor woofer array in which two 8-inch drivers are horizontally opposed to eliminate cabinet vibrations and thus reduce distortion and deliver cleaner, tighter bass response, the company said.

Umm... Isn't that the same technology Pioneer and others employed in the 1980s. In fact, if I recall correctly, the Pioneer solution went even further by incorporating a metal rod between the two opposing woofers which stablized them even more and virtually eliminated all front to rear force when operating.

Don't ya know, it's so old that it's new again.

 

[mzpro5]

The article also talks about some "proprietary" technology:

The Ultra Tower also features a proprietary ForceFactor woofer array in which two 8-inch drivers are horizontally opposed to eliminate cabinet vibrations and thus reduce distortion and deliver cleaner, tighter bass response, the company said.

Umm... Isn't that the same technology Pioneer and others employed in the 1980s. In fact, if I recall correctly, the Pioneer solution went even further by incorporating a metal rod between the two opposing woofers which stablized them even more and virtually eliminated all front to rear force when operating.

Don't ya know, it's so old that it's new again.

What goes around comes around.

 

[Deleted member 133]

The KEF 105/3 (a great speaker by the way) had two internal woofers connected by a metal road, in a ported design. I'm old enough to have recollections of other rod-connected woofer designs. A quick search turned up the Hyperion HPS-738 which uses a rod-connected woofer design as well.

Putting on my marketing hat, and pretending I wanted to jazz up something old, using lingo that would make it sound new, I might write something like "...features a proprietary ForceFactor woofer array..." also. Why? Because while you might think that it's the woofer array that's proprietary, in fact its the word ForceFactor that is - if I treat it as a trademark (as trademarks are proprietary). Tricky.

 

[Botch]

A violin/fiddle has what is called a "soundpost", its a wooden dowel or stick that is wedged inside the body between the carved top and the carved back. Exact placement of the soundpost has a huge effect on the sound of the violin. A fiddler that I worked with in a bluegrass band for one summer once restrung his fiddle, and took off all the strings at once and then put on the new ones. You're supposed to do them one at a time, as removing them all badly changes the forces on the body/neck of the instrument; and, in his case, allowed the soundpost to fall out. He showed it to me and said, "And listen to it!" It sounded like sh*t. I advised him to very carefully remove the strings again (without the soundpost the downward force of the bridge onto the top wasn't as well supported) and take it to the shop to have the post reinstalled.

Would like to read a white paper regarding connected two speakers with a solid rod (not unlike the violin), bet there's some side effects in doing so. :geek:

 

[Dennie]

Why are dipole speakers still being paired with 5.1/7.1 packages? We have had full range discrete surround channels for years now, yet range limited out of phase speakers are still pushed in these surround speaker packages.

From the web page...

The Ultra Surround features dual isolated crossovers for each tweeter and woofer so the speaker can be operated in bipole or dipole mode or in SVS's Duet configuration, which creates two separate speakers within one cabinet. In Duet mode, each Ultra Surround delivers two discrete surround channels, so consumers can create a 7.1-channel system with only two surround speakers instead of four.


I've been using Di/Bi-pole switchable KEF Surround speakers (in wall) for many years now and Dipoles work great for movie watching. Quite a convincing rear sound stage.

Note: I also use two Mono-pole Speakers in ceiling as rear surrounds. :handgestures-thumbup:

Now music is a different story, I listen to music in Stereo. But unless you've tried "Dipoles" for movies, don't knock it until you do. It really works well. IMHO, YMMV!


Dennie

 

[Yesfan70]

For the same reason that horizontal CCs with the tweeter and mids on the same axis are pushed. Because speaker manufacturers can only make money if people buy their speakers. And as long as people think that a dipole is the best solution and is what they want...

Good point, which brings up my second question..."why are horizontal CCs with the tweeters and mids on the....."



Seriously, I can still somewhat see the horizontal center speaker, though I don't understand that either as flat wall TVs are now the norm. In the good ole days of S&V I can remember all those discussions of identical all-around vs better fronts/lesser rears for a given speaker budget. I also remember monopoles being discussed as better suited over dipoles/bipoles.

Dipoles were great in the days of Dolby Pro Logic, but man that was years ago. Now I feel dipoles are pushed more for making money than them being actually an advantage over their cheaper monopole counterparts. Using Klipsch as an example, their RS-52II dipole is $425/ea compared to the RB-61 II's $549/pr price. The 61s have bigger woofers and have a much lower extension for a lesser price.


I don't mean to knock them, but it seems dipoles are becoming as over-hyped as cables. I am an open minded person, so maybe I'll get the chance to compare the two in a setup and let my ears decide. I was very impressed with the Mackie setup I had (and Yromj's setup when I first heard them) and my current Klipsch setup sound awesome. For now, they just don't seem like a valuable option if there is a cheaper monopole version offered when putting together a system.


Sorry for the off topic.



EDIT: The auto-log off "glitch" we have here sucks.