New HSU offering looks interesting - Page 3

Originally Posted by Ricci

Really I think what myself and Bosso to some extent also are saying is that we hope that cea2010 output #s don't become mainly a marketing point causing a sort of db drag race between manufacturers.

Originally Posted by Mark Seaton


There's no reason a vented subwoofer can't have a naked response (pre-internal EQ/ ie response from constant Voltage vs. frequency) which rises 6-12dB from LF tuning to the upper octave of its intended range. It hadn't been a common choice to DIYers, but it's hardly new. That rise can be perfectly EQ'd out. Basic circuit analysis shows that a LT is in fact the perfect tool for that job. Add a 2nd order high pass below tuning for excursion protection and you can dial in any response shape of any driver tied to the box tuning frequency.

Originally Posted by Mark Seaton

I intently did exactly this in the ill-produced MFW-15, and the set of strengths/limits that resulted in was very much part of what many enjoyed in its performance. If you aren't locked into off the shelf drivers parameters can be adjusted and you see that there can be design choices to make of gaining 6-12dB in sensitivity in the upper octave at the expense of 0.5-2dB in sensitivity at the tuning frequency depending on how well the drivers are optimized to the enclosure. There are certainly benefits to using 2-10x the power and a driver with a more flat naked response, but those benefits come at a monetary cost that each buyer and designer have to weigh out for themselves.

Originally Posted by bossobass

The only CEA numbers I have to reference are those posted by Ilkka. I've never been a fan of the standard and I don't know of any major manufacturer who uses it.

Originally Posted by exojam

I have to agree that Bosso needs to get off the sidelines and start offering better information about subs. I really cannot believe you post so little information for us folks to read, along with graphs outlining what we are looking at. So again, I ask you Bosso to get off the sidelines and hold my hand down the path to sub enlightenment

Sorry Bosso I just had to write this after reading some posts in here

James

Originally Posted by soho54

Nevermind, no point in it.

Originally Posted by exojam

I have to agree that Bosso needs to get off the sidelines and start offering better information about subs. I really cannot believe you post so little information for us folks to read, along with graphs outlining what we are looking at. So again, I ask you Bosso to get off the sidelines and hold my hand down the path to sub enlightenment

Sorry Bosso I just had to write this after reading some posts in here

James

Too late, saw your post. He asked where he could see CEA2010 numbers since he couldn't find them.

Originally Posted by Ricci

We are getting way off topic here. Imagine that.

Another great post Mark. Totally agreed on the value of measuring both long term and short term output limits and also the effect on overall fr shape with increased level. Multiple views at behavior are much more valuable.


Really I think what myself and Bosso to some extent also are saying is that we hope that cea2010 output #s don't become mainly a marketing point causing a sort of db drag race between manufacturers. Don't get me wrong I personally think they are useful and prefer cea2010 specs as opposed to none but I consider quite a few other metrics more important. Also I purchased the licensed document some ways back and there are quite a few allowances in there. You can measure at 1m or 2m you are also allowed to measure in room after calibrating the room using data collected with a sealed sub outdoors. There can be some variance between measurement techniques and measurement equipment. I attempted to include cea2010 in my outdoor tests from a month ago but unfortunately they failed to technically meet the criteria governing an acceptable background noise level. Let me say that they were by far the most tedious and time consuming tests conducted as there really isn't a quick and easy way to do it. I also dislike the fact that the official test bands only cover 20-63hz which is barely an octave and a half and the range of the 2 averages less than half of that.

Originally Posted by desertdome

This sounds like a good opportunity for you to post some measurements of the MFW-15 Turbo vs original MFW-15 and explain your reasons for achieving a flatter frequency response with more output around tuning in the MFW-15 Turbo vs the original. I'm sure you could have kept the frequency response curve the same and increased output equally (vs the original) as the frequency increased.

Originally Posted by Mark Seaton

You are definitely correct that a distinction should be made, and that is precisely why Keith Yates and later Ilkka included both swept sine measurements as well as peak burst output. Don Keele was one of the first to really use the shaped tone burst and this was seen in many reviews he did for I believe Audio Magazine back in the 90s or earlier. It is a useful bit of information to know, but as I've been emphasizing, one metric will never give a clear picture of what will be heard.

These practical limits on a ~20-30 second, downward swept sine wave measurement at increasing levels will contrast with the burst power just as would a torque vs. HP vs. RPM curve. I'd request we please not go too far into the annoying car analogies as the important point here is that you need both metrics to get a clear picture of certain behavior. In both cases of audio and auto, where all design aspects are similar you will see much more consistent relations between different metrics. As different designs are compared, we start seeing the assumptions for one specific design implementation fall apart. You can no longer draw confident conclusions from a single metric.

Your example with the Bassis is a perfect one, as any manufacturer will have the ability to employ any EQ they like. The measurements showing burst power and increasing swept sine measurements into clipping would clearly show the design trade offs of twisting the dial for a 9Hz corner (outdoors) vs. a 25Hz corner. While the useful playback limits will be different for each of these low corners, the limit on the 9Hz system will be entirely dependent on the content you are playing. If we know the maximum capabilities per frequency, separate from the frequency response, we can then get an idea of how a subwoofer will handle certain passages. Just playing back a typically recorded rock & roll kick drum, the 9Hz & 25Hz dialed subs will be pretty close in playback limits, while the 9Hz choice will reach its limits much sooner playing War of the Worlds (but sound much more exciting while doing so ).

There's no reason a vented subwoofer can't have a naked response (pre-internal EQ/ ie response from constant Voltage vs. frequency) which rises 6-12dB from LF tuning to the upper octave of its intended range. It hadn't been a common choice to DIYers, but it's hardly new. That rise can be perfectly EQ'd out. Basic circuit analysis shows that a LT is in fact the perfect tool for that job. Add a 2nd order high pass below tuning for excursion protection and you can dial in any response shape of any driver tied to the box tuning frequency.

I intently did exactly this in the ill-produced MFW-15, and the set of strengths/limits that resulted in was very much part of what many enjoyed in its performance. If you aren't locked into off the shelf drivers parameters can be adjusted and you see that there can be design choices to make of gaining 6-12dB in sensitivity in the upper octave at the expense of 0.5-2dB in sensitivity at the tuning frequency depending on how well the drivers are optimized to the enclosure. There are certainly benefits to using 2-10x the power and a driver with a more flat naked response, but those benefits come at a monetary cost that each buyer and designer have to weigh out for themselves.

Originally Posted by Ricci

We are getting way off topic here. Imagine that.

Another great post Mark. Totally agreed on the value of measuring both long term and short term output limits and also the effect on overall fr shape with increased level. Multiple views at behavior are much more valuable.


Really I think what myself and Bosso to some extent also are saying is that we hope that cea2010 output #s don't become mainly a marketing point causing a sort of db drag race between manufacturers. Don't get me wrong I personally think they are useful and prefer cea2010 specs as opposed to none but I consider quite a few other metrics more important. Also I purchased the licensed document some ways back and there are quite a few allowances in there. You can measure at 1m or 2m you are also allowed to measure in room after calibrating the room using data collected with a sealed sub outdoors. There can be some variance between measurement techniques and measurement equipment. I attempted to include cea2010 in my outdoor tests from a month ago but unfortunately they failed to technically meet the criteria governing an acceptable background noise level. Let me say that they were by far the most tedious and time consuming tests conducted as there really isn't a quick and easy way to do it. I also dislike the fact that the official test bands only cover 20-63hz which is barely an octave and a half and the range of the 2 averages less than half of that.

Originally Posted by Hrimnir

I'm nowhere even close to the level of knowledge of the guys in this thread, but one thing i have caught through reading this that somewhat disturbs me is the accusations being thrown at Hsu. I've been following this sub since release as it drops directly in the middle of the price range i was looking at spending for a replacement for my A2-300. I have found in no thread where anyone that represents hsu, or is in any way tied to their company, portraying this sub as being some ultra awesome PB13 killer, and yadda yadda. All they did was say, Hey, here is our new sub, here are the specs on the amp, cabinet, blah blah. And here is how it performs under CEA2010 measurements. All the PB13 killer **** came from users on the forums.

As a HT enthusiast who operates on a $35k/yr income, i and a ton of people like me, don't have the time, inclination, or wherewithal to pursue DIY options. So that leaves us with purchasing pre-made subwoofers.

Now, i understand your concerns about CEA2010 turning the subwoofer market into a "Horsepower race", especially as it doesn't tell you the whole story about a subs performance. Kind of like Mark's HP vs Torque example. On the flip side of the coin, up until now, we've had to rely entirely on internet opinion, and *if* we're lucky, people like craigsub who did some sort of measurements on a sub, or the VERY rare professional review by a place like audioholics.

Generally information is very VERY limited, so in my mind, as a less knowledgeable consumer, CEA2010 is a step in the right direction. Does it need to be tweaked, from what i've read in your guys posts, yes.

Are some of you creating a "slippery slope" fallacy within your arguments. In my opinion, yes.

I think one thing the internet era has helped immensely with is helping people who are looking for truth of things, get it. Perhaps CEA2010 does turn the retail sub market into a festering pool of useless numbers and marketing spin, i'll still be able to log on to a site like AVS and find people saying, "oh hey, that klipsch sub that costs 800 dollars is a hulking piece of dog sh*t, here check out these companies that don't try to fudge numbers and produce a good product".

Also, i think something else you have to understand is that guys like bosso and ricci, etc, operate in a very VERY small percentage of the overall market. What i mean by that is if you take the number of people who have spent any form of money on what could be construed as HT audio equipment, i'd be willing to bet a very large portion of that is HTIB purchases. After that you'll get the people who are willing to piece together a system, and usually they're topping out at in the range of $1k, including receiver, sub, etc.

Then you have the people like me, who are willing to spend $500+ on a sub, $500 plus on a receiver, $500+ on each particular speaker, etc. People in my boat are the norm on this forum, but we're actually pretty uncommon in the outside world, i wont say rare, but uncommon.

Then you the guys who will spend 1500+ per speaker, i.e. the Bowers and Wilkins types, who have no issue spending 3000 dollars on a sub like a DD18 or something (i really dont know how much those are im just guessing).

Then you have guys like bosso and ricci, who want reference level output at 10hz or lower. There is nothing wrong with that, but the point im trying to make is that 99.8% of the HT audio market really doesn't care about that. and 99.8% of the HT userbase would consider having 8x 15" subs with a bunch of plate amps, etc, unacceptably large and unyielding for a normal HT situation. I mean go the the normal sub thread and see how often you get people complaining that a 20x20x20" sub cabinet is "way too big" and will cause them major WAF issues. I've learned long ago in all of my hobbies (computer hardware, VW/Audi, HT, etc) that people like us who tend to side with "function over form" are almost always the minority in an enthusiast group. Apple's computers are a prime example of how important form/looks are to people.

I usually have to turn my setup down NOW when i watch movies with other people because apparently 15db below reference is too loud. People look at me like i'm bat **** crazy when i tell them im about to buy a subwoofer that costs 1000 dollars.

Anyways, i'm kinda rambling now. But my point is that we should be ragging on the CEA2010 benchmark and not giving HSU **** because they're the first person to use those numbers on the spec sheet for their sub. Its not their fault if the measurement system has faults.

Originally Posted by Hrimnir

I'm nowhere even close to the level of knowledge of the guys in this thread, but one thing i have caught through reading this that somewhat disturbs me is the accusations being thrown at Hsu. I've been following this sub since release as it drops directly in the middle of the price range i was looking at spending for a replacement for my A2-300. I have found in no thread where anyone that represents hsu, or is in any way tied to their company, portraying this sub as being some ultra awesome PB13 killer, and yadda yadda. All they did was say, Hey, here is our new sub, here are the specs on the amp, cabinet, blah blah. And here is how it performs under CEA2010 measurements. All the PB13 killer **** came from users on the forums.

As a HT enthusiast who operates on a $35k/yr income, i and a ton of people like me, don't have the time, inclination, or wherewithal to pursue DIY options. So that leaves us with purchasing pre-made subwoofers.

Now, i understand your concerns about CEA2010 turning the subwoofer market into a "Horsepower race", especially as it doesn't tell you the whole story about a subs performance. Kind of like Mark's HP vs Torque example. On the flip side of the coin, up until now, we've had to rely entirely on internet opinion, and *if* we're lucky, people like craigsub who did some sort of measurements on a sub, or the VERY rare professional review by a place like audioholics.

Generally information is very VERY limited, so in my mind, as a less knowledgeable consumer, CEA2010 is a step in the right direction. Does it need to be tweaked, from what i've read in your guys posts, yes.

Are some of you creating a "slippery slope" fallacy within your arguments. In my opinion, yes.

I think one thing the internet era has helped immensely with is helping people who are looking for truth of things, get it. Perhaps CEA2010 does turn the retail sub market into a festering pool of useless numbers and marketing spin, i'll still be able to log on to a site like AVS and find people saying, "oh hey, that klipsch sub that costs 800 dollars is a hulking piece of dog sh*t, here check out these companies that don't try to fudge numbers and produce a good product".

Also, i think something else you have to understand is that guys like bosso and ricci, etc, operate in a very VERY small percentage of the overall market. What i mean by that is if you take the number of people who have spent any form of money on what could be construed as HT audio equipment, i'd be willing to bet a very large portion of that is HTIB purchases. After that you'll get the people who are willing to piece together a system, and usually they're topping out at in the range of $1k, including receiver, sub, etc.

Then you have the people like me, who are willing to spend $500+ on a sub, $500 plus on a receiver, $500+ on each particular speaker, etc. People in my boat are the norm on this forum, but we're actually pretty uncommon in the outside world, i wont say rare, but uncommon.

Then you the guys who will spend 1500+ per speaker, i.e. the Bowers and Wilkins types, who have no issue spending 3000 dollars on a sub like a DD18 or something (i really dont know how much those are im just guessing).

Then you have guys like bosso and ricci, who want reference level output at 10hz or lower. There is nothing wrong with that, but the point im trying to make is that 99.8% of the HT audio market really doesn't care about that. and 99.8% of the HT userbase would consider having 8x 15" subs with a bunch of plate amps, etc, unacceptably large and unyielding for a normal HT situation. I mean go the the normal sub thread and see how often you get people complaining that a 20x20x20" sub cabinet is "way too big" and will cause them major WAF issues. I've learned long ago in all of my hobbies (computer hardware, VW/Audi, HT, etc) that people like us who tend to side with "function over form" are almost always the minority in an enthusiast group. Apple's computers are a prime example of how important form/looks are to people.

I usually have to turn my setup down NOW when i watch movies with other people because apparently 15db below reference is too loud. People look at me like i'm bat **** crazy when i tell them im about to buy a subwoofer that costs 1000 dollars.

Anyways, i'm kinda rambling now. But my point is that we should be ragging on the CEA2010 benchmark and not giving HSU **** because they're the first person to use those numbers on the spec sheet for their sub. Its not their fault if the measurement system has faults.

Originally Posted by Hrimnir

I'm nowhere even close to the level of knowledge of the guys in this thread, but one thing i have caught through reading this that somewhat disturbs me is the accusations being thrown at Hsu. I've been following this sub since release as it drops directly in the middle of the price range i was looking at spending for a replacement for my A2-300. I have found in no thread where anyone that represents hsu, or is in any way tied to their company, portraying this sub as being some ultra awesome PB13 killer, and yadda yadda. All they did was say, Hey, here is our new sub, here are the specs on the amp, cabinet, blah blah. And here is how it performs under CEA2010 measurements. All the PB13 killer **** came from users on the forums.

As a HT enthusiast who operates on a $35k/yr income, i and a ton of people like me, don't have the time, inclination, or wherewithal to pursue DIY options. So that leaves us with purchasing pre-made subwoofers.

Now, i understand your concerns about CEA2010 turning the subwoofer market into a "Horsepower race", especially as it doesn't tell you the whole story about a subs performance. Kind of like Mark's HP vs Torque example. On the flip side of the coin, up until now, we've had to rely entirely on internet opinion, and *if* we're lucky, people like craigsub who did some sort of measurements on a sub, or the VERY rare professional review by a place like audioholics.

Generally information is very VERY limited, so in my mind, as a less knowledgeable consumer, CEA2010 is a step in the right direction. Does it need to be tweaked, from what i've read in your guys posts, yes.

Are some of you creating a "slippery slope" fallacy within your arguments. In my opinion, yes.

I think one thing the internet era has helped immensely with is helping people who are looking for truth of things, get it. Perhaps CEA2010 does turn the retail sub market into a festering pool of useless numbers and marketing spin, i'll still be able to log on to a site like AVS and find people saying, "oh hey, that klipsch sub that costs 800 dollars is a hulking piece of dog sh*t, here check out these companies that don't try to fudge numbers and produce a good product".

Also, i think something else you have to understand is that guys like bosso and ricci, etc, operate in a very VERY small percentage of the overall market. What i mean by that is if you take the number of people who have spent any form of money on what could be construed as HT audio equipment, i'd be willing to bet a very large portion of that is HTIB purchases. After that you'll get the people who are willing to piece together a system, and usually they're topping out at in the range of $1k, including receiver, sub, etc.

Then you have the people like me, who are willing to spend $500+ on a sub, $500 plus on a receiver, $500+ on each particular speaker, etc. People in my boat are the norm on this forum, but we're actually pretty uncommon in the outside world, i wont say rare, but uncommon.

Then you the guys who will spend 1500+ per speaker, i.e. the Bowers and Wilkins types, who have no issue spending 3000 dollars on a sub like a DD18 or something (i really dont know how much those are im just guessing).

Then you have guys like bosso and ricci, who want reference level output at 10hz or lower. There is nothing wrong with that, but the point im trying to make is that 99.8% of the HT audio market really doesn't care about that. and 99.8% of the HT userbase would consider having 8x 15" subs with a bunch of plate amps, etc, unacceptably large and unyielding for a normal HT situation. I mean go the the normal sub thread and see how often you get people complaining that a 20x20x20" sub cabinet is "way too big" and will cause them major WAF issues. I've learned long ago in all of my hobbies (computer hardware, VW/Audi, HT, etc) that people like us who tend to side with "function over form" are almost always the minority in an enthusiast group. Apple's computers are a prime example of how important form/looks are to people.

I usually have to turn my setup down NOW when i watch movies with other people because apparently 15db below reference is too loud. People look at me like i'm bat **** crazy when i tell them im about to buy a subwoofer that costs 1000 dollars.

Anyways, i'm kinda rambling now. But my point is that we should be ragging on the CEA2010 benchmark and not giving HSU **** because they're the first person to use those numbers on the spec sheet for their sub. Its not their fault if the measurement system has faults.

Originally Posted by soho54

That is not what I said, or what I was getting at.

As you have linked to them now, what do they tell you? Are they at 1m or 2m? Outdoors, or indoors?

I still don't see the FR graphs.

Originally Posted by JackOften

Frequency Response graphs are useless to a newb for comparison.

2 FR Graph Examples:

Epik Sentinel
Measured outside at a 2m distance
No Smoothing
Does not denote maximum output

SVS PB-12
* Unsmoothed, quasi-anechoic frequency response: Measured with high resolution instrumentation (1/60th octave) via "ground plane" technique, outdoors, at two meters' distance, a minimum of 70 feet from reflective boundaries, predecessor PB12-NSD FR temporarily shown.

So where do I start?
One graph goes from 10-200 in the x axis, the other 10-400. One graph goes from 50-100 in the y axis, the other 0-120. Am I seriously going to re-plot these graphs myself while i'm open to every sub in the price range?
One is in anechonic fr, one is a quasi-anechoic fr. How do I account for the differences?
One says not maximum output. Should I give them some bonus SPLs?
One says Ground plane, one doesn't state. Not sure how that impacts the graph.
One was outside... was the other? How do I account for the other being inside? (not that I know)
Neither states what the Upper THD limit is. How do I know one is up to 10% and the other 60%?

These FR Charts arn't helpful to newbs like myself. They sure are pretty though. The CEA2010 standards at least give me a 'standard' to compare these subs.

Originally Posted by villastrangiato

Just like a full series or battery of measurements is an obligation of the manufacturer or reviewer - it is also the responsibility of the consumer to educate him or herself as to what the specifications mean and to recognize the importance of understanding the nature of the measurement techniques being used. Auto manufacturers don't intentionally omit skid pad numbers, 0-60mph numbers, braking distance from 60 mph, the miles per gallon figure, or the torque figure of their products because some percentage of consumers are so dense or clueless that they would be confused by such information. Ignorance on the part of the consumer does not absolve the manufacturer from the responsibility to put forth a good faith effort to document the performance of their products. If you're too lazy to learn as a consumer - then you lose out. Pushing manufacturers into publishing data for the lowest common denominator would relegate us all back to the dark ages. Learning and progress are still a virtue - aren't they?

Originally Posted by villastrangiato

Just like a full series or battery of measurements is an obligation of the manufacturer or reviewer - it is also the responsibility of the consumer to educate him or herself as to what the specifications mean and to recognize the importance of understanding the nature of the measurement techniques being used. Auto manufacturers don't intentionally omit skid pad numbers, 0-60mph numbers, braking distance from 60 mph, the miles per gallon figure, or the torque figure of their products because some percentage of consumers are so dense or clueless that they would be confused by such information. Ignorance on the part of the consumer does not absolve the manufacturer from the responsibility to put forth a good faith effort to document the performance of their products. If you're too lazy to learn as a consumer - then you lose out. Pushing manufacturers into publishing data for the lowest common denominator would relegate us all back to the dark ages. Learning and progress are still virtues - aren't they?

Originally Posted by JackOften

So where do I start?
One graph goes from 10-200 in the x axis, the other 10-400. One graph goes from 50-100 in the y axis, the other 0-120. Am I seriously going to re-plot these graphs myself while i'm open to every sub in the price range?
One is in anechonic fr, one is a quasi-anechoic fr. How do I account for the differences?
One says not maximum output. Should I give them some bonus SPLs?
One says Ground plane, one doesn't state. Not sure how that impacts the graph.
One was outside... was the other? How do I account for the other being inside? (not that I know)
Neither states what the Upper THD limit is. How do I know one is up to 10% and the other 60%?

These FR Charts arn't helpful to newbs like myself. They sure are pretty though. The CEA2010 standards at least give me a 'standard' to compare these subs with less discrepancies than what i've pointed out above.

Originally Posted by mjg100

If you want to be an informed buyer, then study the subject. That is what most of us do here in the DIY section. Some are just farther along than others.

Originally Posted by Hrimnir

I'm nowhere even close to the level of knowledge of the guys in this thread, but one thing i have caught through reading this that somewhat disturbs me is the accusations being thrown at Hsu.

Originally Posted by soho54


Now I will ask you how are the CEA numbers helpful to you, the un-informed?

Were they taken at 1 or 2m? Do you know what it would mean if it said? Indoor, or outdoor? What was the THD breakdown? You can have two different subs measure the same CEA average number, but one could be at 10%, and the other over 30%. What if the subs have different bandwidths?