Sounds interesting but is it better than the BK subs which you can get for around 400 pounds?
I thought I would get this question in first before anyone else lol.
IAt 600£ it`s going to have very hard time against BK Monolith Plus (530£ shipped)
I can't really recommend subs I haven't actually heard, but since I did cover the SVS and XTZ, I'll add them to the alternatives part of the review.The monolith+ was £585 last time I looked, but it's almost twice the size (95l enclosure, 46kg) and I very strongly suspect it is a better sub for the money. You'd be mad not have it on your shortlist at least. Speaking of mad, to fail to mention the BK, SVS, or the XTZ as alternatives in the review is also of questionable sanity - they should be the first three subs on your shortlist, before this and the REL.
I second the request to get a Double Gem in for review, it looks like an interesting cheap sub alternative.
The monolith+ was £585 last time I looked, but it's almost twice the size (95l enclosure, 46kg) and I very strongly suspect it is a better sub for the money. You'd be mad not have it on your shortlist at least. Speaking of mad, to fail to mention the BK, SVS, or the XTZ as alternatives in the review is also of questionable sanity - they should be the first three subs on your shortlist, before this and the REL.
I second the request to get a Double Gem in for review, it looks like an interesting cheap sub alternative.
No need to apologise. Based on owners comments, I'm sure the BK subs are excellent. Like I said, I asked BK for review samples in the second half of last year but they failed to deliver.Sorry @Steve Withers.
I was only half joking but the other half was because I think my BK sub is great and I really don't believe this sub is even close to being 300 pounds better.
Sorry.
I can't really recommend subs I haven't actually heard, but since I did cover the SVS and XTZ, I'll add them to the alternatives part of the review.
Regarding the sentence that I have highlighted, in the Home Cinema Choice group test review, in actual practice as opposed to the specifications, the Fyne Audio was adjudged, by a relatively small margin but definitely, to be the deepest of the four subwoofers. As it happens, only yesterday I emailed Home Cinema Choice magazine to point out the disparity between the claimed low frequency responses and how the various subwoofers actually performed in practice. This is what I said:Agreed. You can get new M+ for ~530£ shipped or basic for Mono for 445£ in UK (grade-b full warranty both) and the SVS PB1000 for 519£ which no doubt all are ahead in many areas of Fyne. BK P12-PR being similar size at 450£ would be tough competitor aswell offering better extension and output than the forum favourite sealed P12.
Fyne sells this as "half kilowat sub" 520w, but if one looks more carefully that is peak power figure (370w being RMS), secondly the low frequency response 28hz -6db typical in room is little high for a 600£ costing HT sub knowing that ported sub output drops like stone below tuning point. But it seems this sub sounds great at the range it´s meant to perform and no report of port noises yet. Shame it wasn´t tested against other ported models.
With new brand it´s always question mark how reliable the amps are going to be and how good the support is after warranty. Fyne amps comes with 2year warranty same as BK, SVS/Arendal/XTZ offers 5years, REL 3years.
Regarding the sentence that I have highlighted, in the Home Cinema Choice group test review, in actual practice as opposed to the specifications, the Fyne Audio was adjudged, by a relatively small margin but definitely, to be the deepest of the four subwoofers. As it happens, only yesterday I emailed Home Cinema Choice magazine to point out the disparity between the claimed low frequency responses and how the various subwoofers actually performed in practice. This is what I said:
"I would like to comment on an apparent (I say apparent because I'm not sure if it's true) anomaly in the results of the subwoofer group test by Mr Steve Withers in Issue 297. The group winner, and in the text it is described as the deepest subwoofer, is the Fyne Audio F3-12. Yet its claimed frequency response is given as "Down to 28Hz". The PBS SubSeries 250 turned out in practice to be the least deep of all four subwoofers in the test, yet its response is "25Hz to 150Hz", which at the lower end is specified as lower than the Fyne Audio! The REL HT/1205, which finished second overall, is specified as "Down to 22 Hz (-6dB)", which should be a fair bit deeper than the Fyne Audio but that's not what actually transpired, though it was close. The SVS SB-1000, which finished a strong third, is specified as "26Hz to 300Hz", which again is apparently lower than the Fyne Audio, which bests it. I realise that it would help if all the subwoofer frequency specifications had -3dB or -6dB limits, but even allowing for that, in this group test at least there seems to be no correlation to how deep a subwoofer actually sounds in practice, and its claimed frequency response."
That's a fair amount of power for a ported sub. I suspect there is also some filtering at the low end, to make sure the cone is controlled and does not bottom out.Fyne sells this as "half kilowat sub" 520w, but if one looks more carefully that is peak power figure (370w being RMS), secondly the low frequency response 28hz -6db typical in room is little high for a 600£ costing HT sub knowing that ported sub output drops like stone below tuning point. But it seems this sub sounds great at the range it´s meant to perform and no report of port noises yet. Shame it wasn´t tested against other ported models.
Regarding the sentence that I have highlighted, in the Home Cinema Choice group test review, in actual practice as opposed to the specifications, the Fyne Audio was adjudged, by a relatively small margin but definitely, to be the deepest of the four subwoofers. As it happens, only yesterday I emailed Home Cinema Choice magazine to point out the disparity between the claimed low frequency responses and how the various subwoofers actually performed in practice. This is what I said:
"I would like to comment on an apparent (I say apparent because I'm not sure if it's true) anomaly in the results of the subwoofer group test by Mr Steve Withers in Issue 297. The group winner, and in the text it is described as the deepest subwoofer, is the Fyne Audio F3-12. Yet its claimed frequency response is given as "Down to 28Hz". The PBS SubSeries 250 turned out in practice to be the least deep of all four subwoofers in the test, yet its response is "25Hz to 150Hz", which at the lower end is specified as lower than the Fyne Audio! The REL HT/1205, which finished second overall, is specified as "Down to 22 Hz (-6dB)", which should be a fair bit deeper than the Fyne Audio but that's not what actually transpired, though it was close. The SVS SB-1000, which finished a strong third, is specified as "26Hz to 300Hz", which again is apparently lower than the Fyne Audio, which bests it. I realise that it would help if all the subwoofer frequency specifications had -3dB or -6dB limits, but even allowing for that, in this group test at least there seems to be no correlation to how deep a subwoofer actually sounds in practice, and its claimed frequency response."
That's a fair amount of power for a ported sub. I suspect there is also some filtering at the low end, to make sure the cone is controlled and does not bottom out.
My first sub was a REL strata which was a 10 inch driver with a 50 watt amplifier! It was a Mk1 with a huge port and went very low. But with some LFE tracks the driver would easily hit the stops. Later models introduced low end filtering and a boost at 80Hz which was termed 'slam' .
Sealed boxes also helped control the driver but required more power.
Rated frequency response is 28 Hz. Edge of Tomorrow opening scene bass is well under 20 Hz. Wondering how this sub was able to reproduce it. Please clarify
One factor could be under what conditions the 28 Hz figure was measured: a 2m ground plane measurement would show lower output at the lowest frequencies than would be achieved in a room (due to 'room gain'). That said, I'd want to see an in room measurement with a microphone to be convinced that the Fyne sub really did output anything meaningful that low in a test. It would after all seem rather unusual/surprising for a company to massively undersell the capabilities of their product.
Agree. When I run frequency drop test in my SVS sub, it pushes air well until 10Hz but drops off at 17 Hz which is the rated lowest frequency of the sub.
That's a pretty good frequency response when all said and done. The EQ certainly smooths out the bumps and the bottom end is quite impressive.Room modes and applied correction will make a difference too of course. Here's an MLP example for my Monolith with the black curve being without EQ and the coloured curves being with EQ at different output levels.
(I didn't try louder so the top curve doesn't represent maximum output, and there was also an LP filter applied.)
Edit: the curves have 1/24th octave smoothing applied.
View attachment 1146364
That's a pretty good frequency response when all said and done. The EQ certainly smooths out the bumps and the bottom end is quite impressive.