JL Audio Fathom f113 Subwoofer

F112 or F113

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:02:11 +0100

First of all...great review. I decided I would try to get opinions from both Colin Miller and yourself on the F112 vs. F113 comparison. I'm in a small room and I watch very few movies. I listen to some music that dips in the 20's (hz) range and listen at low levels. Which of the two subwoofers mentioned would most satisfy my needs? - BJ

...

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:48:05 +0100

Full range speakers with built-in subwoofers can be quite good, but to get down there and wallow in < 20 Hz sound (such as with Jurassic Park), you really need a big sub in its own big enclosure. Full range speakers just don't have the room to do that, unless you went with speakers that are almost the height of your listening room. - JEJ

JL Audio Fathom f113 Subwoofer

Sun, 03 Aug 2008 09:06:21 +0100

In general, would a full range speaker system such as the Definitive Tech. BP7000SC perform better than using s syatem that requires a separate subwoofer(s)? I am looking at home theater speaker options and think that the f113 is an excellent product, however, if a full range speaker can also go as low and play as clean as the f113, what would be the advantages/disadvantages with regards to overall performance by having the subwoofers & amps built into the main speakers, vs going with a stand alone sub such as the f113?application? - Rick

Ned

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:10:03 +0100

Be leary of in room distortion measurements and their interpretations. The F113 is a much better sub that the Earthquake in every capacity. - Jed

Something seems askew.

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:44:03 +0100

It looks like the MiniMe by Earthquake got the same distortion limited output measurements as the mighty JL F113. The MiniMe is tiny, weighs 40lbs, and has a 10 inch woofer. Surely this can't be right. - Mike

...

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:29:24 +0100

OK, I will do that in the next few days. But I am a bit surprised that any manufacturer out there contemplating advertising on some website would be taken in by that website's stats on the competition. - JEJ

...

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:16:29 +0100

JEJ this has been very informative and I now know the numbers I was seeing on the other website were misleading. I work for an AV company and I think this kind of info is important for our evaluation of websites in terms of potential advertising. Could you repost this discussion in your blog area so other manufacturers will be likely to find it? I tried to open a blog on this but I can't get it to work. - Tim

...

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:14:52 +0100

Well, then, that must be the problem with why some magazine is saying their readership is so much higher than ours. We don't put the Google Analytics script on every page. Just a few pages here and there, because we use Google Analytics for specific isolated purposes, not for the general use by whatever publications there are out there who want to say they are bigger than some other magazine. Thanks for pointing out that the Google script has to be on every page for an accurate set of traffic data. We don't use the analytics script on every page, so that settles the issue. We use a different on-board stats analysis package to get our readership data, which are completely accurate, because they analyze the traffic for every page. And the stats are much higher than Google Analytics, because the Google Analytics results are only for a few specific pages on our website. The best thing for us to do is to find out what websites are using some third party analytics to say what our readership is and then contact their advertisers to let them know they are being fed false information. As to Alexa, it does not treat every website the same, because not every magazine can be said to have the same number of people signed up for the Alexa tool bar. None of my staff use it. I don't use it. But, I guess if an editorial staff of some particular website tells their readers to sign up for it, that would give them a pretty good Alexa rating. I would imagine the editorial staff of such websites are sure to sign up for the Alexa toolbar. - JEJ

Stats

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:35:44 +0100

Google analytics installed on every page of your site will give you nearly 100% accurate traffic informaton. This is an industry accepted tool and whether you choose to believe me or not is up to you. Yes Alexa does require a toolbar to be installed to count that traffic but since it does it equally for all websites it equalizes the playing field. If you notice the worlds largest websites have the lowest alexa ratings, its no coincidence! Why is a subwoofer review thread opening a discussion on web stats? This seems more appropriate elsewhere. - Jed

...

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:34:09 +0100

The f113 stayed below 10% throughout the low frequencies, and this is very good for the size of the enclosure. These days, consumers want small enclosures, but it is very, very difficult to get a high output at 20 Hz, with low distortion, in a small enclosure. - JEJ

...

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:30:10 +0100

Third party verification tools only show what they call trends. They are not precise measurement tools for traffic. And as to Alexa, that is not accurate at all because you have to sign up for the toolbar to be present on your browser in order for it to measure you as a reader for any particular website. Neither myself or any of my staff have signed up for that toolbar, so Alexa stats don't even include my own staff's hits on our own website. The news is full of critcisms of Alexa rankings as being innaccurate. In fact, there is one A/V website out there where the editors told their readers to sign up for the Alexa toolbar just so they would get higher Alexa rankings. Sorry, but the only true way to judge a website's penetration is by its rankings in the search engine results. - JEJ

...

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 06:33:31 +0100

A little HIgh distortion. Would be cool to test the new HSU sub vs this one... - Caci

Stats

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:48:11 +0100

Google analytics is universally accepted as an accuate 3rd party verification tool. Most of the LARGER websites like Slashdot, Arstechnica, etc use Google analytics. There is no hiding with that. Also Alexa gives a good indication of how well placed a website is on the net. The lower the # the better. - Jed

...

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:03:24 +0100

I don't know which other website you are referring to, but no one can really know what the stats are for a particular website except the people who have control of the server's data for that particular website, meaning the server's managers. There are web bot services out there that can estimate traffic, but it is just a guess, that's all. Server data are embedded behind firewalls, and are not accessible by web bots. If a company managed to truly monitor who was accessing every website in the world, some 100,000,000 websites by various estimates, it would take a server farm the size of Idaho. Not to mention they would be breaking federal wire tapping laws. The Secrets website is through a professionally managed server and our data are deeply protected. We do not make our readership number public, although we give those data to our sponsors. The true test of a website's penetration into a broad readership is its placement in Google search engine results, as you have experienced. If you find a website that says their website has more readers than other websites based on web bot data, you can safely laugh in their face, because they are simply afraid of their competitors. A credible website does not have to say, "Ours is bigger than theirs." - JEJ

...

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:27:32 +0100

This isn't exactly on the subwoofer topic but I don't know wher else to ask this question. I read on another website that they said they had several times more readers than you guys but whenver I use Google to search home theater topics, Secrets is usally near the top. What is going on? - Tim