Subwoofer Reviews

First let me just say that this subwoofer may well be great, but this review reeks of author bias and preconception. the fact that the reviewer is a devout owner of the companies products and came in with all intentions of praising the product regardless what the facts may turn out to be IMO makes it impossible not to take this review with a gain of salt or even a spoonful. I think S&V should preclude any Owner and FAN of a manufacturer products from reviewing said products- especially when the review is totally subjective. How is this subwoofer with a total of 700 watts (Peak) is the equal of 2 SVS SB13 subs (for example, based on a statement in the review)with a total of 3600 watts EACH. Don't even try to justify this review it's just a disgrace.

I agree with hk2000 and would like to see the return of reviews that compare the product being reviewed against other comparable manufacturers products, especially factors such as cost, amp power, MDF thickness,warranty,etc.. I also am considering the SVS PB13 ported sub (2 total) and/or the sealed SB13, both of which would cost substantially less than the $6,400 2 X12's would cost. I'm sure the X12 is a great performer, but are any differences that would be noted in a blind A/B comparison tests going to be so much greater, to then warrant the additional cost of 2 X12's? This is the type of review criteria that reviewers frequently included in the past but is lacking in equipment reviews today. Purchasing 2 X12's for $6,400 would be justified. If the dollar / performance factor simply blew away the lower cost for either the SVS PB13 13 or smaller sealed SB13 13. If not the case in actual listening comparisons, then the much greater cost for the X12 is not worth it IMO.

For starters, I had no preconceived bias coming into this review. I own M&K speakers, but have never owned one of its subwoofers. Second, the company is different than the speakers I own, since it went through bankruptcy. I state clearly in the review that the sub is expensive and that you could buy two subs from an Internet direct company for the same price of one X12. "How is this subwoofer with a total of 700 watts (Peak) is the equal of 2 SVS SB13 subs (for example, based on a statement in the review)with a total of 3600 watts EACH. Don't even try to justify this review it's just a disgrace." Please show me where I said this in the review? I never made this comparison. Furthermore, comparing only "watts of power" isn't the way to judge a subwoofer. The push/pull design of this sub is extremely efficient. Hear one for yourself before you make a judgement. I've owned an SVS Ultra sub for over 10 years and LOVE it, but this sub has a distinct sound and it moves a ton of air. As I state in the review, it literally moved the hair on my legs (and the sub was 10 feet away from my listening position).

Thanks for replying, below you'll find where I got my impressions:

"But the brand would live on, as Danish investors bought the assets of the company and some of the former employees became a part of a new company, MK Sound, to continue building on the legacy of Miller and Kreisel."
That's another way of saying the company- or brand, at least in your mind is still the same. It's human nature, I've always been biased towards NHT, they've changed ownership many times but my bias lives on.
And:
"you can buy two subs for a similar price from some Internet-direct companies. Those subs might give the X12 a run for its money, but they may not come with THX’s Ultra2 certification or M&K’s pedigree."
If that's not saying the X12 would equal the 2 subs or at least it'd be too close to call, then one of us needs to go back to grammar school.

Again, the X12 maybe extraordinary, and you're right I have not listened to it, but I stand by my objections to this review.

Given the hard work we do testing products and editing and vetting the reviews, I'm always a little surprised to see the blatant attacks sometimes launched by readers with little or nothing to go on. "Absolute Bias." Wow -- strong words, and I don't see any justification for them in this review. Because the guy owns and loves the same company's full-range speakers? Two points to make here: First, we specifically asked David to review this sub because it's the bottom end anchor of M&K's just-released (and very pricey) S300 system, which I knew he would also be reviewing for us later. He is, in fact, the perfect reviewer for that nearly $18,000 system. He's intimately familiar with what is a very distinct and unvarnished M&K sound (common to studio monitors) from his S150 reference system, and, critically, because of his reference he was the best person on the staff to delineate how much (if any) additional value might accrue when stepping up from the S150 to the S300. The idea that he would have given the sub a positive review if it didn't perform or not call it out for being expensive is utterly ridiculous, and he suggested clearly that there is the potential to get similar performance out of a less expensive subwoofer. But...and this is a big BUT...if you've never heard one of these classic-design M&K dual-woofer push-pull subs, you really are in no position to comment. They are special. And I would add that subwoofer amp power or box size are unreliable indicators of how a subwoofer will perform. Building a really good sub is hard to do, even if you commit the resources in parts.

Which brings me to point number 2: Short of entering into a well-executed double-blind test, there is no subjective audition of any A/V product that is conducted by any reviewer anywhere in which there is no preconceived bias before the review begins. All of his or her prior experience with the brand and with competitive brands, what he or she may have read about the product online or in marketing materials, the price point, even the packaging and the experience of unpacking and setting up the product before the audition begins creates an expectation and mood prior to the listening or viewing. With our limited reviewing resources, we're already biased to select products we hope or expect will perform well--this M&K sub was one of them. But that doesn't mean our reviewers don't call it like they hear it or see it, and that their personal sense of dollar value and their ears (or eyes) don't win out in the end. We know consumers count on us to tell the truth and explain our biases and personal preferences up front to put the reviews in context. Manufacturers also count on us to get it right -- we know we could potentially destroy the sales of a product, and it's my responsibility as editor to make sure we're accurate and conduct our tests fairly and with technical prowess. Reviewing products is a serious business, and all of us take that responsibility very seriously.