New HSU offering looks interesting - Page 4

If the CEA specs make more informed buyers that force manufacturers to raise the bar then it's all good. I don't like the fact that they measure using .325 seconds at 20hz for example. When the LFE really gets goin it's usually gonna be longer in duration than .325 seconds (so what then of distortion) but somethin is better than nothing. The specs still don't say anything about group delay or other parameters so just cause it specs well in the SPL category does not say anything about it's transient response or overall sound quailty. That being said, coming from the source I have reason to believe their offering will be excellent.

Amen.

You get a Hsu T-shirt for this post, but you have to offer proof that you're in the 99% of HT consumers and not one of those bad people in the 1% camp.

Bosso.

Well, look, you can mock me for what i said, thats fine. I'll still stand by it.

I also wanted to mention, i didnt mean for or intend that post in any way to be insulting or demeaning to guys like Ricci or Bossobass, i respect them greatly and what they do, as i respect their knowledge.

My point was that they are in a different league, and as such have different goals with their setups. The argument is whether or not "every" consumer should strive for that, or if we should be happy in our ignorance.

From what i've read in the DIY forum, getting flat reference response down to say 10hz, is going to take well over $1000 dollars worth of subs/mats/amps to accomplish.

Now, if this thread was about a $3000 brick and mortar sub, than i wouldnt have said squat, because i dont think the average HT enthusiast will drop that much deniro on a single sub. Maybe i'm wrong or missing the point altogether, /shrug

Great info. As the 'un-informed' as you put it, this information is widely disseminated and isn't easily found and put into layman's terms.


Despite your lack of approval over methodology (I'm working off the assumption that you've seen the CEA2010 specs and arn't dangerously speculating), it has the distinct advantage of allowing me to quickly tally and rank subwoofers. Again, the results aren't an all-inclusive number that satisfies every facet of my (or anyone else's) needs, but they do give me a jumping off point. That's more than the so-called experts around here have done. They refuse to put themselves out there and rank subwoofers (two exceptions, Ikka and Craigsub who both haven't done so in 3+ years). Information is only valuable to those who have access to it.

Bottom liine is that I do want all the sub manufacturers to have a common test so that I can make up my mind on what I want. This will allow you to buy the most for your $$. Publishing different specs creates confusion and then it gets down to the fanboi's ballyhooing the merits of their fav to sway sales. This is a fun hobby and I want the best that my $$ will get me.

I take back about his validity as a resource. He's openly mocking individuals for finding his assumptions incorrect. It's unfortunate when people's egos get in the way of the truth.

Hi H,

I've been mocked, vilified, insulted, demeaned and sitting on the sidelines for a decade.

Means nothing.

Keith Yates installed 4 custom 9Hz tapped horns in a private screening room. Don't know about you, but that story is interesting as h e double toothpicks to me. When we've asked Yates for details, he didn't start sobbing hysterically and need smelling salts before he took to name calling.

Lots of knowledgeable folks have been in this forum over the years and gladly divulged details of their products. Sometimes it sparks a debate. Sometimes the debate gets quite spirited.

What is the trauma here? We've all benefitted from those exchanges.

We know we're a unique bunch. So does the industry, which has lurked here since the beginning, which means they're smart in my book. Citing errant statistics is silly at best. It has no meaning and answers no questions.

Post the dang frequency response magnitude already, will ya?

BTW, isn't the new Hsu sub over $1000 delivered? And it can't do 10Hz @ reference levels. Cost is irrelevant. Extension is irrelevant. Post the numbers or say they aren't of any interest to you and head to the nearest thread that makes you happy. But please don't disparage those inquiring minds who press the author of limited data to expound on the info by telling them no one else cares, so neither should they.

Bosso

JackOften,

You're alright, stick around. We try to answer questions when asked over here when we can. I didn't mean anything by the un-informed part. I just read through several other posts that seemed to be proud that they didn't know anymore than they did. It tainted things a little.


Yeah, I have seen the specs. I also know how to do the measurements. My questions were trying to show how they aren't really that good for making comparisons to other subs. They are made out to seem like something they are not.

As for the "experts" I'm not sure what you are looking for? Ilkka never ranked anything, but he did do a lot of good measurements. He had a lot of help though, and plenty of people who showed up with subs. (That is a big deal, ask Ricci.) People are trying to get something going, but the US is a big place.

As for anyone else, I don't know of anyone else with the cash to listen to everything out there. Anyone else own a car dealership, and have aspirations of getting into the audio game out there?

If you guys want to send cash/pay pal, I'll measure everything out there.

So, Polk, who sponsored the standard, uses it. Wow, thanks for the big find. So what do you make of the data and what do you compare it to?

Instead of saying a load of nothing, just answer Soho's questions, or couldn't Google help you do that?

Bosso

Haha, thanks. I wasn't offended by 'un-informed', it's accurate. I think I used a similar term to describe myself earlier in this thread.

I hear ya... it takes a ton of resources to test.

To echo bsoko2 up there, I think us 'un-informed' are a little frusterated with the lack of 'subwoofer for dummies' rankings. Cars have it, CNET ranks TV's. There's not much that's similar for subs. I know I see CEA2010 testing isn't perfect, but it's a possible step to get subwoofer manufacturers on the same page for testing. For that reason IMO it's worth encouraging, even if it's from the bottom-up in this case (small-to-big subwoofer manufacturers), gotta start somewhere.

I also think that ID companies should embrace the standard... it gives them an opportunity to show how they stack up value wise to the big boys in terms us 'un-informed' can be dazzled by. In the short term it looks like/ could be cannibalization of the ID sub companies, but in the long term punching holes in the large manufactuers sales could/will help the ID companies bottom line a lot more than focusing on other ID companies.

hey guys, i read many of the posts, but not them all. you all know me as a proponent of high efficiency and/or big motor designs.

so, with that said, i think the control of the driver in the new hsu sub is underestimated.

john j.'s av series are low q = win.

jbl's w15ooh is low q = win (used in their reference rooms btw).

craigsub's 18 is kind of low q = pretty much win.

thiele designs low q = win.

chad k. is kind of low q = pretty much win.

bag end is low q = win.

lms ultra is low q = win.

even kicker has some low q drives = win.

dr. hsu is low q = win.

dr. hsu experimented with mbm's and apparently concluded that **overall** it makes sense to just wrap it into the sub. better damping = better sound.

big motors don't just drive higher maximum sensitivity, they also control the cone, which for sine waves may not matter so much. but combine several frequencies and you get the cone moving much, much faster than any single sine wave in the subwoofer range would suggest.

i agree with bosso that a sub should recreate the signal on the disc, i just don't think spectrumlab plots are the ideal way to measure this (though it goes a long way toward capturing most of it).

I don't know how you're pulling any of this out of my posts. I think you're reading too far inbetween the lines. I said most of the consumer base doesn't care about acheiving that kind of goal, that doesn't by extension mean that pushing for something or being interested in something like that is by any means pointless, stupid, or worthless.

I read articles about things like that as well, i found the article about the guy in Italy who used concrete in his basement to make a huge horn subwoofer literally out of his basement floor that was capable of demolishing his home if he decided to try to go for max output, extremely interesting.

All i was trying to do was defend Hsu a bit, as it seemed to me like they were getting the short end of the assumption stick in this thread.

This is the main part of your post that bothered me:


I'd love for you to show me a post on this forum by Pete Hsu or anybody who represents that company that tried to portray that sub as anything other than what it is? They never said, "hey look at these cea numbers, wow we're pwning the face off of SVS!". Now, yes, some forums users took those numbers and ran with them and portrayed them for something they don't represent. If you want to rag on those guys, fine, but don't get on Hsu's ass about it when all they did was say "hey, here's how the sub did on CEA2010."

Dear bossobass,


The frequency response of 15-200Hz (+/-2dB) that we measured outdoors is in the ported max extension mode (ie. one port plugged, Q = 0.7, operating mode set to 'EQ1').

The max clean CEA2010 peak output capability that we measured outdoors and was referenced earlier is in the ported max output mode (ie. both ports open). Note that the frequency response we measured outside in this mode is +/-2dB from 20-200Hz (Q = 0.7).

The final EQ'd frequency response can be whatever the designer chooses to be, but the max clean CEA2010 peak output capability will not change irrespective of how the final frequency response is shaped by the designer.

Absolutely, I can ask Dr. Hsu about posting some frequency response graphs on our website. I would like to take the unit to a park to get graphs that are as ripple free as possible, and we can post them.

Sincerely,

Forgot to respond to this. I think the fact that Hsu has submitted the sub to audioholics for their shootout speaks volumes about that company.

Also, for your buddy who played the "fanboi" card. I'll have you take a look at my signature and notice that the first sub i bought was eD, and if you take a look at many of my posts in the last few months, you'll see i was going to be purchasing another eD sub, either an A5-350, or an A7-350. I've never been any company's fanboi with the sole exception of Coca-Cola.[/quote]

Hi Pete,

Always good to see you.

Yes, I got the FR and CEA numbers. It's the highlighted part that was my focus.

My point was that most every reader of those posted specs did NOT get that, at the max #s level, the FR changes rather drastically, which is a normal phenomenon when porting LTD's favorite drivers, but not generally understood.

In order to realize the max numbers above the knee, the EQ'd FR flies out the window. IOW, the sub, at maximum output and assuming properly operating limiters, will perform like a typical pro sound "subwoofer". If you post the max CEA #s and the EQ'd FR together without that distinction, it's misleading.

Since I've built sealed L/T'd subs for many years, I'm well aware of the fact that the native FR and the max output FR are not the same. The question is where do the 2 begin to part ways, which helps with how many are needed for a particular rooms transfer function, etc.

Maybe if part of the CEA standard was to plot the max CEA curve on a standard graph, the numbers would immediately be put into context by illustration.



The traces are approximate from what you've posted thus far. I appreciate the gesture to post the actual measured responses.

Put it this way; it was easy for me to see at a glance that there was a wider than normal disparity when the numbers were posted. Thus my comments, which I would not have brought up if you hadn't popped into the DIY section.

Of course, I'm sure you're aware, the protestations of a couple of your apparently offended faithful notwithstanding, that I'm simply making an observation, based on your posted data. No harm intended. The sub looks to be another great product in a long list of them.

Bosso

To clarify, by "pro sound subwoofer" are you simply saying in the mode required to hit the CEA2010 numbers it will have gobs of output way up high (above 40/50hz) to hit those levels at the expense of the lower frequencies?

Bosso, for a comparison it is only fair that you show Pete a comparable chart for a single unit of your Raven (or whatever it is called these days). You know, the one that is flat to near DC!

You group all drivers by Qts? Comparing the LMS 5400 to the JBL 1500 by Q leaves out the facts that the LMS has an Fs almost an octave lower and has more than double the displacement. 2 completely different drivers with different apps.

How so and what instead? Just wondering if there's an alternative. I'd be interested.

Bosso

Thanks for adding to the discussion, as always.

My system has 6 selectable native responses, so you'd have to pick one, and I don't have, nor do I intend to pursue, much less publish CEA max output numbers from 20-63Hz, 1/3 octave for any of the 6.

Any more little comments?

Bosso

Yes. A higher sensitivity usually means a higher Fs/F3. I call it top heavy. That's not a bad thing, it just needs to be spelled out vs a ported or PR'd sub from which both curves are much closer in shape and magnitude.

Bosso

I was hoping to question LTD02 as to how "low q = win" before you were able to clue him in that the statement was clueless. I'm sure his explanation would have been fascinating.....

How many off topic discussions are we trying to squeeze into this thread?

While the specification debate was a bit off topic - the Hsu claims for "low q" are and should be fair game for this thread. As for "low q", the vast majority of drivers have Qts values that fall between .2 and .5. Some of the driver's listed by LTD02 such as the LMS Ultra fall more in the middle of the range at .325 and are thus not "low q". The statement that "low q = win" strongly suggests a misunderstanding of the implications between the driver's Q and the Q of the resulting alignment when it is placed in an enclosure.

As for the particular suggestion by Hsu that low q drivers imply "tighter bass" - I stand by my earlier post that places that claim in the useless hype category. A net damping factor of .5 is considered ideal for most oscillatory systems that place simultaneous and equal value on bandwidth and signal quality. In the realm of subwoofers - a sacrifice of transient behavior is often made for extension where a system Q of .7 is considered ideal. There are a number of ways on can achieve the stated goals and a "low Qts" driver is not necessarily the only or ideal way of getting there.

Gawd, I am bored. I need a new toy.

I've never heard anything other than dynamic compression from a Bag End sub. I would take pretty much anything from Hsu over anything from BE.

But I also think people are way overthinking the whole sub thing. The answer to high-fidelity bass is really quite simple. Get several competent subs, at least three. Scatter them around the room, preferably with the biggest one in a corner for max ULF reinforcement. Figure out how to set them up. If you need more SPL, add more or bigger subs.

i agree

now having read a few thousand debates like this every time a new sub comes out the logical next comeback will be "yeah but some people are interested in a single sub solution and are on a budget"

then someone will say "well then they can't afford good bass"

then it starts all over again

remember when the HSU sealed sub was announced? that was a classic thread

As for the sub under discussion, I'm inclined to draw all reasonable inferences in Hsu's favor. After all, they've been mail-ordering subs for longer than just about anyone (maybe Cambridge SoundWorks came out with their first one earlier, but whatever) and they've amassed an impressive record.

I daresay none of us would've thought of making our own Sonosubs were it not for the ur-Hsus.

And then EQ them.

Not to go off topic again, but realistically what kind of budget would you say someone would need to account for via DIY options to obtain reference level output in a reasonably large room, lets say ~4000ft^3?

I.E. would say 4x Tempest X2 15" subs, each in their own sealed box, powered by lets say a pair of EP2500's be sufficient?

I'm guessing that would run in the range of $1000 for the subs, $700 for the amps, and i'm guessing MDF is fairly cheap so $300 for mdf?

My understanding of sealed vs ported subs is that sealed subs tend to produce more output below the tuning point of the ported version, but less above? Which from what i've read in this thread would ultimately be more ideal, in so much as the goal is flatter response down to a lower frequency?

A lot less than the budget required for prefab equivalents.

I don't really do the "bench racing" thing, though. It's just not that interesting to me.

Start with real, adult mains (high efficiency, large cone area, constant directivity) across the front, add multiple subwoofers, and it all tends to work itself out.

And venting vs. sealed just gives an extra degree of freedom. What the designer does with it is up to her/him. I prefer sealed, just because generally one can make sealed subs smaller, and when one's trying to get a bunch of subs into a room without disturbing the aesthetic of the room smaller is always better than bigger.