Damn Tax Man! - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 03:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jahjd2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadyJ View Post

The Empire is an upper bass monster, and upper bass is what localizes a sub, so it's no wonder that your Empire draws attention to its position. You know, if you like the sound of your Empire now, and are only going duals to reduce localization, you might think about just lowering the crossover instead. Take it down to 60 Hz, and see what that is like, after all, it doesn't cost you anything. Bass above 80 Hz is localizable, but the thing is, those 80 Hz crossovers, they aren't brick wall filters, they draw down at a 24dB per octave slope, and that might be one of the causes of your localization issue.

As for other subs, that is a pretty slim fit for VTF3s, incidentally I have my pair of VTF3s flanking my couch as end tables with the drivers facing inward towards the listening position. The drivers pounding right into the couch really packs a punch. I am not sure if you have the room to pull that off though, I would want at least an open inch for air-flow. Still, they make magnificent end tables. I think the E15 and SB13 would be great too. Those are using terrific drivers. Also consider the Reaction BPS 215, it is 18" wide and a pair will only set you back $1550. Reaction is a brand new company. If you have any questions about those, the company owner is pretty active in the Reaction forum.

Great call on the x-over. About a month ago I rotated the Empire so that the woofer didn't fire directly into the sofa, lowered the gain, and lowered the x-over to 60 Hz. That helped a lot. It went from 40% localization to only hearing it 15% of the time. It made a big difference.

That's an interesting Dayton driver; haven't considered the "DIY" route. Thanks for the suggestion!

Dolby Atmos 5.1.4
Denon x6200
Ascend Acoustics Towers and Horizon Center (NrT)
RSL 34CE in-ceilings (4)
Rythmik E15HP
Jahjd2000 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 04:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Farley1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Georgia, United States
Posts: 475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadyJ View Post

Basshead I could counter your points, but this thread has already become bogged down in technical minutia likely beyond the interest of the OP, so I will let it go. Have a good evening. smile.gif

I suspect a lot of other people, both current or reading in the future, might be interested in seeing what you come up with. 


Samsung KS8000 65", Sony UBP-x800
Denon AVR-X1000
SVS PB-2000
Front-Center-Surround, Pioneer: FS52-C22-FS51
Farley1 is offline  
post #63 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 04:10 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
basshead81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 13,220
Mentioned: 188 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 324 Post(s)
Liked: 9301
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadyJ View Post

Basshead I could counter your points, but this thread has already become bogged down in technical minutia likely beyond the interest of the OP, so I will let it go. Have a good evening. smile.gif

Don't give up yet...might as well keep er going. smile.gif
Farley1 likes this.
basshead81 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 04:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bear123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: PA
Posts: 6,439
Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2652 Post(s)
Liked: 4147
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadyJ View Post


CEA isn't the end all measurement of subwoofers, in fact, for as much weight as you assign to it, it has some significant shortcomings, and, yes, even for real world material. Yes, I know who formed the standard and what research it is based on. There are those in the industry who agree it is woefully inadequate as a sole measure of subwoofer performance, including the two foremost sub testers who use it, Brent Butterworth and Josh Ricci.

As for scaling the XV15 for orientation, that doesn't work as you describe, which I think you would understand. You want the XV15 data to be scaled for a front firing orientation to put it at parity with the other subs tested. The problem with that is you are trading one acoustic emitter for another. I'm guessing the testing was initially done with port facing the mic. If you angle the sub with woofer facing the mic, you gain measurement output from the woofer but lose it from the port. Here is some measurements that neatly illustrate that principle:



Yet you want to have it both ways, and even assume as much in your product comparison chart on the XV15's product page. The performance data as you wish it to be presented is simply invalid.

Shady, this chart seems to imply that with the driver facing the mic, the measured output above 40 Hz goes up considerably.  The output with port facing the mic goes up considerably below 30 Hz.  We know that moving the mic away from the driver has a big impact on measured output.

 

So does this verify that measuring a ported sub with both the port(s) and driver on the same face would have a substantial advantage versus measuring a sub where the woofer and port are on different sides?  In other words, lets assume that the XV15 was tested with the port facing the mic.  We would have a lower measured output due to the woofer not facing the mic, AND a lower measured output due to the woofer being further away.  Wouldn't this result in a substantial decrease in measured performance compared to a sub in which both woofer and port faced the mic?  If a design like the VTF15 or Outlaw sub that measured the same as the XV15 in ground pane testing would result in the XV15 having more actual output in room.

 

I am aware that you are of the opinion that changing the orientation would increase distortion and not increase passing output, but Josh Ricci himself states that orienting the woofer to the mic would indeed result in higher passing cea2010 output, which of course is governed by staying below allowable distortion thresholds.  

 

Now, we are not talking about 3, 4, or 6 dB of output difference.  But, as close as some of these subs measure, adding 1.5 dB to the XV15's numbers changes things quite a bit when comparing with subs such as the VTF15 or the outlaw LFM1-EX.

 

Again, from what I can tell, the XV15 is at two disadvantages with groud plane cea2010 testing.  The mic is further away from the woofer, and the woofer is not facing the mic.  Sounds like a 1.5 dB difference in tested output would be conservative.

bear123 is online now  
post #65 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 04:42 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Cinemafreak1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadyJ View Post

Basshead I could counter your points, but this thread has already become bogged down in technical minutia likely beyond the interest of the OP, so I will let it go. Have a good evening. smile.gif

I love the technical minutia, how else will I learn and decide on a sub.

Cinemafreak1 is offline  
post #66 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 04:46 PM
Senior Member
 
Farley1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Georgia, United States
Posts: 475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinemafreak1 View Post
 

I love the technical minutia, how else will I learn and decide on a sub.

Excellent. :)

 

I love it too, generally speaking, because it's quantitative and 'real'...but my understanding and application of it still leaves much to be desired, much like yourself.

 

*All ears*


Samsung KS8000 65", Sony UBP-x800
Denon AVR-X1000
SVS PB-2000
Front-Center-Surround, Pioneer: FS52-C22-FS51
Farley1 is offline  
post #67 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 04:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
derrickdj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,767
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1005 Post(s)
Liked: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowTech1 View Post

So how is it that 12" sub is going to be equal to a 15" sub with the same amp power? Otherwise,why use a 15" driver?

A 12 in. can be put out more output than a 15 if the xmax is greater,stronger BL or motor/magnet stuructue and the depth of the cone. This equals displacement.
derrickdj1 is offline  
post #68 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 04:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tom Vodhanel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,859
Mentioned: 124 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3035 Post(s)
Liked: 10325
Here is the pertinent text from Josh Ricci regarding the enclosure orientations.

Ricci's Avatar Ricci Ricci is offline
Bassaholic

Ricci should be listened to
Join Date
Jun 2011
Location
Louisville, KY
Posts

>>>Tom already replied with much of the information including difficulties with orientation and measuring in an outdoor environment. In room the close acoustic proximity of the boundaries equalizes this. Let me just add that I thought about firing the woofer at the mic which would have required removing the base plate but in the end I decided not to fool with it. It may have resulted in a slight amount of extra output maybe 1 or 1.5dB or so if I had done so which Tom has indicated is about right.<<<<

Source
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/subwoofers/82624-power-sound-audio-xv-15-subwoofer-review.html Post #9.

I suppose one could believe shajy knows more about this topic than Josh Ricci(or myself)...it is a free country.

I have never measured the example above, only our products. The above graphs represents the frequency response of the system. This is related to the max output capabilities under burst(CEA-2010 conditions) but it is not an exact "transfer function". In other words you cannot look a basic frequency sweep and then say with any certainty what the cea-2010 burst measurements would be. Two VERY different measurement metrics only indirectly related.

Tom V.
Power Sound Audio


...

..

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, But I have promises to keep,
Tom Vodhanel is online now  
post #69 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 05:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tom Vodhanel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,859
Mentioned: 124 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3035 Post(s)
Liked: 10325
Here is a post I made on the subject recently. Some of this is redundant with my previous post but there is additional info as well.


Hi all,


http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/subwoofers/82624-power-sound-audio-xv-15-subwoofer-review.html

See Posts #5 and #9 for reference.

Jim and I have spent a few thousand hours outside, measuring hundreds of different products in just about every conceivable manner. Josh Ricci is well known in the industry as one of the most experiences folks around when it comes to outside measurements.

You can see in the post I made well over a YEAR ago...we measured the XV15 in multiple orientations. As my time here is very limited I'll try to make a few quick comments.

1)my comments regarding the effect of the driver facing in some direction OTHER than directly at the measurement mic are not guesswork or assumptions. My comments are based on 15 years of ground plane work. We measured the XV15 in this *exact* manner during the various stages of development(as we have with most/all of our proto types. I have formed my opinion on this issue based on all of the data at our disposal. The differences between the two orientations were very consistent. With the (center) of the driver moved to the 91 inch mark(down firing as Josh Ricci measured) the CEA-2010 scores *always* dropped as described in the thread I referenced above. So my opinion here isn't something I *hope* is true....it IS true based on well over a decade of data collection.

2)If the claim of distortion reduction by the driver facing down was a true influence on CEA-2010 scores Josh would obviously have made mention of this. And we would have also mentioned this too whenever the subject was discussed. The truth is this is *not* much of an influence. The majority of influence will be with harmonics >300hz. If you look at our data-bass testing you will see our CEA-2010 scores are almost all "amplifier limited" The "highest" harmonic that WAS a contributor (limiter) to the CEA-2010 scores of the XV15 is the "third harmonic" of 25hz....or 75hz. This frequency has a wave length of about 15 feet. This is too long to be altered in any significant fashion during GP work per the CEA-2010 guide lines. Can you see something on the order of a 0.05dB change(worst case)? Sure. How would this effect a 20-63hz CEA-2010 score? Maybe by 0.1dB...maybe. This is the type of influence a shift in the barometric pressure might have..smile.gif

3)I dug up an old test sheet from the XV15 as Josh measured. This is from almost 2 years ago. The current XV15 used an improved driver and a DSP program that "loosens up" some of the limiters a bit.

Same test conditions(tests were done just a few minutes apart.

Facing the mic.............down firing 91" from center of cone to mic

20hz 103.5...................103.1
25hz 107.3...................106.5
31hz 111.5...................110.1
40hz 115.3...................114.0
50hz 117.2...................116.1
63hz 116.1...................114.8


Anyway, I certainly don't have the time to spend dodging the "bullet du-jour" from the anti-Tom coalition like this on a regular basis but I hope the above will offer a little information on how my opinion(s) have been formed over the last 15 years of measuring speakers and subwoofer.

Tom V.
Power Sound Audio

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, But I have promises to keep,
Tom Vodhanel is online now  
post #70 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 05:30 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Cinemafreak1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farley1 View Post
 

Excellent. :)

 

I love it too, generally speaking, because it's quantitative and 'real'...but my understanding and application of it still leaves much to be desired, much like yourself.

 

*All ears*

I see you have the PB2000.  Assume you love it.  Do you have it facing front near field as they say?  My space is over 4.2k cu ft, but listening area if half open the space.  hall in back but otherwise closed off.  probably will end up with duals in the end.  Am curious about orientation of the sub, especially since PSA is down firing with rear port and SVS is front firing front port.  I like them both but the look of SVS front firing with grill is pretty cool, but if I have to turn it around in a corner I lose the look.  ramble ramble...learn learn.

Cinemafreak1 is offline  
post #71 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 05:38 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Cinemafreak1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 13

Tom,

 

Easier to not quote you which can make the post so long.  I always appreciate the time you take to post on the site.  I am new to the world of subs, but have always researched  the hell out of anything I purchase...to the annoyance of my wife.  It gets to the point where she just yells at me to just buy a damn new tv already....hehehehehe...well played sir, well played.  Anyway.  As I am the OP looking to spend my tax return, it refreshing to have someone stand behind their product without pushing it on anyone and letting it speak or boom in this case.  As well as educate us newbs.  

 

Michael

Cinemafreak1 is offline  
post #72 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 05:42 PM
 
shadyJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,743
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1330 Post(s)
Liked: 1358
Quote:
Originally Posted by basshead81 View Post

Exactly...and the 110db sweeps should only be compared because both subs are only increasing in output in a narrow margin when the 113db sweep was performed on the outlaw and 115db sweep on the XV15. Oh and I was comparing the distortion between the 2 @ 110db and the XV15 still stays under 10% down to 24hz, the outlaw breaks 10% around 35hz in 1port. You need to look at the data carefully because the only 113db data for the outlaw is in 2 port mode. Port limited or driver limited makes no difference, a subwoofer is a system of components. Put the Outlaw in 2port and they both are damn near identical performers except the Outlaw lacks extension. In all fairness the Outlaw should not even have a 1 port mode because it is severely underported. It starts compressing at 95db. Hell even a pair of them would still be compressing pretty good at 105db. A pair of XV15's would have virtually no compression @ 110db and distortion would decresase 10fold.

Since the OP says he is cool with more technical talk, Ok, I'll address a couple of these points. First, I say it is better to be port limited than driver limited, because the port affects far less bandwidth than the driver. If your driver is limited, it hurts a lot more areas of performance than the ports do. As for the Outlaw being under-ported, I agree. I wouldn't say its severe as you do, because the port compression doesn't get too bad until the 105 dB sweep. Here is why the XV15 does not get any bragging rights in this respect: look at the response shapes at the 105 dB sweep for both subs, the over all frequency response at that point is very similar. The Outlaw is down by 6 dB from 60 Hz to 20 Hz at the 105 dB sweep, and so is the XV15. At 110 dB, the Outlaw is down by 10 dB at 20 Hz from its peak at 60 Hz, the XV15 is down by 8 dB, so the XV15 does a tad better there. Still, none too impressive given the big advantage that the XV15 has on paper.

You'll note that the XV15 has hardly any output advantage against the single port Outlaw in these sustained sweeps, its higher CEA numbers are all knocked down, presumably from thermal compression; the voice coil has lost magnetic strength due to heat. What all this illustrates is that the Outlaw driver itself is simply more robust, no doubt the larger enclosure volume helps as well, and the sub's chief limitations are, as you correctly said, the ports. Outlaw could enlarge the ports, which would bring down the system Q, and that would ease up the compression, perhaps at the cost of some mid bass output. At that point, what you have would be a lot like a VTF3 mk3 I would imagine.
shadyJ is offline  
post #73 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 05:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Farley1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Georgia, United States
Posts: 475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinemafreak1 View Post
 

I see you have the PB2000.  Assume you love it.  Do you have it facing front near field as they say?  My space is over 4.2k cu ft, but listening area if half open the space.  hall in back but otherwise closed off.  probably will end up with duals in the end.  Am curious about orientation of the sub, especially since PSA is down firing with rear port and SVS is front firing front port.  I like them both but the look of SVS front firing with grill is pretty cool, but if I have to turn it around in a corner I lose the look.  ramble ramble...learn learn.

I just received it yesterday, and it is my first real sub (I got a BIC F12 a few weeks ago, after 5 years of Polk PSW10, but AVS blackmailed me into getting something 'real'). I am very happy with it so far, though (and I see no reason for that to change). It's an entirely different realm. Not just a different league, a different realm, compared to the F12. 

 

I do not have it near field. Yesterday I located it (and ran Audyssey of course) on the front stage (where it is in the attached image) between center and right front. But I wanted to try for a little more bass (see my room dimensions!)...so I made a way to move the dog kennel...the sub is currently in the left front corner, which puts the front of the sub not more than 2-3 feet from the left front speaker. Not that it was weak up there on the wall in the front stage, but more is more, right?

 

I didn't try facing it towards the wall because, well, I don't want to look at the back of the sub. I also don't want my toddler to have access to the controls on the back, she loves to turn knobs and push buttons and all that fun stuff. 

 

Going on pictures and videos I do think I like the look of the SVS better than the PSA (I know everybody says the PSA finish looks better in person), and I suppose that might have played some kind of role in my decision. But really, the upgrade policy and broader product lineup was what hooked me to SVS in the end (also mine was an outlet special for $729, it has some damage to a corner...to me it was worth saving $70 to have a little damage on the corner...plus that corner is literally in the corner of the wall now so I don't really even see it). Frankly what I really wanted was a PC12-Plus...now I'm close to 2/3 of the way there and I have a year to find the $ to get the rest of the way. 

 

I hope this rambling post from a guy who has exactly 1 day experience with a real sub was worth the time it took to read.


Samsung KS8000 65", Sony UBP-x800
Denon AVR-X1000
SVS PB-2000
Front-Center-Surround, Pioneer: FS52-C22-FS51
Farley1 is offline  
post #74 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 06:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Farley1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Georgia, United States
Posts: 475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 165

Crap I rambled on and never attached the layout

[IMG]http://i59.tinypic.com/34e92qd.jpg[/IMG]

 

livingroomupdated.png 63k .png file  

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	livingroomupdated.png
Views:	78
Size:	62.9 KB
ID:	76608  

Samsung KS8000 65", Sony UBP-x800
Denon AVR-X1000
SVS PB-2000
Front-Center-Surround, Pioneer: FS52-C22-FS51
Farley1 is offline  
post #75 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 06:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tom Vodhanel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,859
Mentioned: 124 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3035 Post(s)
Liked: 10325
Hi Bear,

One more consideration I may or may not have mentioned, the frequencies(sound waves) reproduced by the porting will be MUCH longer. 20hz is about 57 feet for example. 80hz is about 14 feet. The longer the sound wave the more omni-polar the dispersion pattern will be. So the less sensitive to exact orientation relative to a measurement mic. In short, with a ported sub tuned very low(in the teens like the XV15) the orientation of the driver will make significantly more difference than the orientation of the port.

Tom V.
Power Sound Audio

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, But I have promises to keep,
Tom Vodhanel is online now  
post #76 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 06:33 PM
 
shadyJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,743
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1330 Post(s)
Liked: 1358
Quote:
Originally Posted by bear123 View Post

So does this verify that measuring a ported sub with both the port(s) and driver on the same face would have a substantial advantage versus measuring a sub where the woofer and port are on different sides?  In other words, lets assume that the XV15 was tested with the port facing the mic.  We would have a lower measured output due to the woofer not facing the mic, AND a lower measured output due to the woofer being further away.  Wouldn't this result in a substantial decrease in measured performance compared to a sub in which both woofer and port faced the mic?  If a design like the VTF15 or Outlaw sub that measured the same as the XV15 in ground pane testing would result in the XV15 having more actual output in room. 

Now, we are not talking about 3, 4, or 6 dB of output difference.  But, as close as some of these subs measure, adding 1.5 dB to the XV15's numbers changes things quite a bit when comparing with subs such as the VTF15 or the outlaw LFM1-EX.

I will address both this and Tom's post here.

Do subs which have ports and drivers on the same face have an advantage for this type of testing? Yes. Is is as big as a flat 1.5 dB across every frequency? No, and Tom's own testing reveals that, thus undercutting his own justification for that boost to the measured numbers. Let's examine the difference in Tom's own orientation tests:

Facing the mic.............down firing 91" from center of cone to mic

20hz 103.5...................103.1 = .4 difference
25hz 107.3...................106.5 = .8
31hz 111.5...................110.1 = 1.4
40hz 115.3...................114.0 = 1.3
50hz 117.2...................116.1 = 1.1
63hz 116.1...................114.8 = 1.3

It makes makes sense that higher frequencies get a bigger boost since deeper frequencies are less inhibited by boundaries and surfaces. Note that nowhere did Tom himself measure a full 1.5 dB increase. Also note that this would have worsened distortion measurements (only slightly perhaps) and compression magnitude were the sub measured in this orientation. It's silly to bicker over matters of less than a decibel, but the problem here is PSA's own marketing scheme, their comparison charts, depend on it to succeed in making the XV15 look like a higher performer than the VTF15h. This is, of course, ignoring every single other performance metric outside of CEA wherein the VTF15h bests it in all of them, in some cases by large margins.
shadyJ is offline  
post #77 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 07:02 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
basshead81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 13,220
Mentioned: 188 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 324 Post(s)
Liked: 9301
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadyJ View Post

Since the OP says he is cool with more technical talk, Ok, I'll address a couple of these points. First, I say it is better to be port limited than driver limited, because the port affects far less bandwidth than the driver. If your driver is limited, it hurts a lot more areas of performance than the ports do. As for the Outlaw being under-ported, I agree. I wouldn't say its severe as you do, because the port compression doesn't get too bad until the 105 dB sweep. Here is why the XV15 does not get any bragging rights in this respect: look at the response shapes at the 105 dB sweep for both subs, the over all frequency response at that point is very similar. The Outlaw is down by 6 dB from 60 Hz to 20 Hz at the 105 dB sweep, and so is the XV15. At 110 dB, the Outlaw is down by 10 dB at 20 Hz from its peak at 60 Hz, the XV15 is down by 8 dB, so the XV15 does a tad better there. Still, none too impressive given the big advantage that the XV15 has on paper.

You'll note that the XV15 has hardly any output advantage against the single port Outlaw in these sustained sweeps, its higher CEA numbers are all knocked down, presumably from thermal compression; the voice coil has lost magnetic strength due to heat. What all this illustrates is that the Outlaw driver itself is simply more robust, no doubt the larger enclosure volume helps as well, and the sub's chief limitations are, as you correctly said, the ports. Outlaw could enlarge the ports, which would bring down the system Q, and that would ease up the compression, perhaps at the cost of some mid bass output. At that point, what you have would be a lot like a VTF3 mk3 I would imagine.

Yea but the XV15 is still much better thd characteristics then the Outlaw in 1 port, so that combined with the better compression characteristics do give it some bragging rights. Also I am not sure what you are looking at but comparing the longterm compression sweeps the EX in 1 port is compressing 6db and the XV15 is only compressing 1db on the 105db sweep. On the 110db sweep the EX in 1 port is compressing 11db, the XV15 is compressing 5.5db. So what I see is the XV15 has half the compression below 30hz of the EX in 1 port. Also the XV15 is holding a +/-3-3.5db 22-100hz response on the 110db sweep. The EX is +/-4.5db 22-100hz...so it appears the XV is staying more linear on the long term. Also the EX in 1port gains 0 output on the 110db sweep below 30hz, where the XV15 is increasing output 3db from 16-30hz.


I am not saying the EX is bad obviously it is solid at its price point. I base this on other facts aside from third party measurements and that is members that have owned both.
basshead81 is offline  
post #78 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 07:07 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
basshead81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 13,220
Mentioned: 188 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 324 Post(s)
Liked: 9301
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadyJ View Post

I will address both this and Tom's post here.

Do subs which have ports and drivers on the same face have an advantage for this type of testing? Yes. Is is as big as a flat 1.5 dB across every frequency? No, and Tom's own testing reveals that, thus undercutting his own justification for that boost to the measured numbers. Let's examine the difference in Tom's own orientation tests:

Facing the mic.............down firing 91" from center of cone to mic

20hz 103.5...................103.1 = .4 difference
25hz 107.3...................106.5 = .8
31hz 111.5...................110.1 = 1.4
40hz 115.3...................114.0 = 1.3
50hz 117.2...................116.1 = 1.1
63hz 116.1...................114.8 = 1.3

It makes makes sense that higher frequencies get a bigger boost since deeper frequencies are less inhibited by boundaries and surfaces. Note that nowhere did Tom himself measure a full 1.5 dB increase. Also note that this would have worsened distortion measurements (only slightly perhaps) and compression magnitude were the sub measured in this orientation. It's silly to bicker over matters of less than a decibel, but the problem here is PSA's own marketing scheme, their comparison charts, depend on it to succeed in making the XV15 look like a higher performer than the VTF15h. This is, of course, ignoring every single other performance metric outside of CEA wherein the VTF15h bests it in all of them, in some cases by large margins.

Add all of those numbers up and divide by 6...guess what you get, 1.05db average gain which is what Ricci and all of us have said from day one. smile.gif
basshead81 is offline  
post #79 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 07:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Luke Kamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 1,495
Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 187 Post(s)
Liked: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by basshead81 View Post

I am slightly disappointed with your responses. I never recomended anything PSA in this thread...I am not biased to 1 brand as much as you would like to think. For some reason I thought we were in agreement on a lot of different things and I respect your opinion. I can gurantee you it is not all PSA owners inflating my thumbs up. Please spend more time here and elighten me if you will. I have always valued your opinion. Shady and I sling mud a lot and fwiw I still like to have him around on these forums. I apologized to Bosso for my response to him in another thread and he did not accept,
But that is his choice. I am here to learn and help pass along information that I pick up from guys like Bosso, Bill F, DonH, Shady, LTD, yourself. If you think I am out of line on something then say it. smile.gif

My point still remains that it is not apples to apples to specifically compare varibale tuned subwoofers in its highest tune to a sub that is a single tune,,tuned much lower. You should compare the tune that matches the others...jmo

Sorry to disappoint. I am not personally calling you out on anything like you did Shady post 5, which I might add the informative post was worth 2 thumbs up. Its all in good fun dude, just posting what I see.

Maybe this post and the one that follows by steve will enlighten.
https://www.avsforum.com/t/1516587/vote-which-four-18-or-24-inch-drivers-for-sealed-enclosures-and-why/300#post_24388078

Hop has more thumbs up than posts? I spend a lot of time roaming the forums and not posting, just a personal observation of mine.

Its native tune is the higher tune. It is recommended by the designer to use the higher tune for max output. It also doesn't have vinyl like I have seen you state. You can compare it in any tune, thats whats nice about variable tuning. I didn't come here to compare these two, I just wanted to show a graph with the native vs. burst of the PSA since it was said the burst is more like what we hear. I should have erased the other lines, my bad. I invite you or anyone else to start up the old thread if anyone wants to discuss that.

I don't like the PSA value factor comparisons. I would like more variety of recommendations from all in these types of threads. I like all the quality subwoofer manufacturers and have felt it a bit lopsided in this area of the forum as of late. Maybe I am way off base and should have stayed out of this thread like I do all the others.

"I like it over here...getting tired of the same ol "what sub for 500.00" threads in the turn key section. If I had DIY subs I would probably just camp here." I was disappointed to see you back over here, come to the darkside. Do a couple of the full marty's, you know you want to. tongue.gif
Luke Kamp is offline  
post #80 of 99 Old 03-18-2014, 08:38 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
basshead81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 13,220
Mentioned: 188 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 324 Post(s)
Liked: 9301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Kamp View Post

Sorry to disappoint. I am not personally calling you out on anything like you did Shady post 5, which I might add the informative post was worth 2 thumbs up. Its all in good fun dude, just posting what I see.

Maybe this post and the one that follows by steve will enlighten.
https://www.avsforum.com/t/1516587/vote-which-four-18-or-24-inch-drivers-for-sealed-enclosures-and-why/300#post_24388078

Hop has more thumbs up than posts? I spend a lot of time roaming the forums and not posting, just a personal observation of mine.

Its native tune is the higher tune. It is recommended by the designer to use the higher tune for max output. It also doesn't have vinyl like I have seen you state. You can compare it in any tune, thats whats nice about variable tuning. I didn't come here to compare these two, I just wanted to show a graph with the native vs. burst of the PSA since it was said the burst is more like what we hear. I should have erased the other lines, my bad. I invite you or anyone else to start up the old thread if anyone wants to discuss that.

I don't like the PSA value factor comparisons. I would like more variety of recommendations from all in these types of threads. I like all the quality subwoofer manufacturers and have felt it a bit lopsided in this area of the forum as of late. Maybe I am way off base and should have stayed out of this thread like I do all the others.

"I like it over here...getting tired of the same ol "what sub for 500.00" threads in the turn key section. If I had DIY subs I would probably just camp here." I was disappointed to see you back over here, come to the darkside. Do a couple of the full marty's, you know you want to. tongue.gif

Ok Luke no prob! I am only giving Shady flack in fun smile.gif ....I value your opinion and please do not stay out of these threads. If you chime in more perhaps the things you disagree with will be less lopsided?

To be honest I would rather just see cea2010 numbers from 20-80hz for each sub, but it is not my call. Tom has his reasons for using the value chart and I do not fault him either way.

Full Marty's are definitely tempting. smile.gif
basshead81 is offline  
post #81 of 99 Old 03-19-2014, 08:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tom Vodhanel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,859
Mentioned: 124 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3035 Post(s)
Liked: 10325
Quote:
Originally Posted by basshead81 View Post

Ok Luke no prob! I am only giving Shady flack in fun smile.gif ....I value your opinion and please do not stay out of these threads. If you chime in more perhaps the things you disagree with will be less lopsided?

To be honest I would rather just see cea2010 numbers from 20-80hz for each sub, but it is not my call. Tom has his reasons for using the value chart and I do not fault him either way.

Full Marty's are definitely tempting. smile.gif

I agree that the CEA-2010 should include more than 20-63hz. The majority of our products would benefit from an expanded frequency range as the XS15, XS30, XV30f, and Triax all continue to climb in a healthy manner up high. Jim spent most of the day outside measuring yesterday and one example of this is the current XS30 measured 6dB higher at 80hz and 100hz than it did at 50hz. The Triax has the same "violent" upper bass leap. The XS15 is close behind. The XV15 as tested by Josh wouldn't benefit much. The current XV15 does quite a bit better >50hz though..smile.gif If I have time today I'll modify the data to reflect 20-80hz and post what they would look like.

20-63hz was chosen for 2 primary reasons(for our chart).

1)It is currently the industry standard.

2)All of the CEA-2010 data from Brent Butterworth only includes the 20-63hz bandwidth.


Also, for those that may still be wondering about the SPL loss from a driver facing the mic versus a driver 90 degree off, I believe ths chart is a good indicator. (note---the xv15 wouldn't suffer <30hz this much because of the port considerations)

http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=content&id=77#!prettyPhoto[pp_gal]/3/

Here is Josh Ricci's comment specifically about this test

>>>You can see that from turning either the Rythmik or ED subs 90 degrees from the microphone causes a rather substantial drop in recorded output.<<<<br />
Tom V.
Power Sound Audio

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, But I have promises to keep,
Tom Vodhanel is online now  
post #82 of 99 Old 03-19-2014, 12:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bossobass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,575
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Vodhanel View Post

1)change the hsu data to max extension so you are comparing apples to apples(similar extension capabilities).
2)Factor in the differences in the way each unit was measured and scale the performance data accordingly.


Tom V.
Power Sound Audio

The XV15 could not output a passing number at 12.5, so why use the Hsu 1 port tune? Just because the Hsu offers dual tuning is no reason to cherry pick the comparison.

Even if you do compare the Hsu using its 1 port results, the Hsu has less compression, less THD, more CEA burst output everywhere but @ 50 Hz, where the XV15 has its peaked-response at max burst AND posted a passing number @ 12.5 Hz.

As far as "the differences in the way each unit was measured...", I used Josh's results at DB and am not aware of a different methodology being employed for one vs the other.
bossobass is offline  
post #83 of 99 Old 03-19-2014, 01:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bear123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: PA
Posts: 6,439
Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2652 Post(s)
Liked: 4147
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

As far as "the differences in the way each unit was measured...", I used Josh's results at DB and am not aware of a different methodology being employed for one vs the other.

Regarding only this point, many tested ported subs have both the driver and ports on the same side, which allows them to both face the microphone for groundplane testing.  Facing the driver away from the mic lowers the CEA2010 max SPL.  The XV15 has the port and driver on different sides, so its measured CEA2010 numbers are lower than what they would be if the driver were facing the mic, vs being slightly further away and oriented 90 degrees away from the mic.

bear123 is online now  
post #84 of 99 Old 03-19-2014, 02:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bossobass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,575
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by bear123 View Post

Regarding only this point, many tested ported subs have both the driver and ports on the same side, which allows them to both face the microphone for groundplane testing.  Facing the driver away from the mic lowers the CEA2010 max SPL.  The XV15 has the port and driver on different sides, so its measured CEA2010 numbers are lower than what they would be if the driver were facing the mic, vs being slightly further away and oriented 90 degrees away from the mic.

Really? How much lower, and based on what results?

This was dispelled years ago when the same claim was made about the SVS cylinder when TV was still at SVS. The test was done with the cylinder upright vs laid on the ground with mic equidistant to bot the port side and driver side. As I recall, maybe 1dB difference, certainly within the margin of error.

In any case, the noted point of the basic response vs the CEA max burst response, THD, compression, etc., are unchanged significantly by the claim.
bossobass is offline  
post #85 of 99 Old 03-19-2014, 02:21 PM
 
Bill Fitzmaurice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 15,491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 5775
Quote:
Originally Posted by bear123 View Post

 Facing the driver away from the mic lowers the CEA2010 max SPL.  
Only when measured too close to the speaker. When measured with adequate distance the results will be the same. CEA specifies 2 meters, but that's too close when measuring 5 to 20 meter wavelengths.
ahmedreda likes this.
Bill Fitzmaurice is offline  
post #86 of 99 Old 03-19-2014, 03:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bear123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: PA
Posts: 6,439
Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2652 Post(s)
Liked: 4147
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post


Really? How much lower, and based on what results?

This was dispelled years ago when the same claim was made about the SVS cylinder when TV was still at SVS. The test was done with the cylinder upright vs laid on the ground with mic equidistant to bot the port side and driver side. As I recall, maybe 1dB difference, certainly within the margin of error.

In any case, the noted point of the basic response vs the CEA max burst response, THD, compression, etc., are unchanged significantly by the claim.

From what I can tell from testing done by Josh Ricci to specifically address this question, it appears to be a marginal difference around the port tune, say, under 30 Hz, and 1-1.5 dB above that.  Although the testing he did with the Rythmik was over a 2 dB difference when turned 90 degrees across pretty much the entire bandwidth, with a rise in the upper frequencies.

 

As for your last sentence, I agree, which is why  i specifically stated "regarding this point only" at the beginning of my post.  I should have been more specific and indicated that I was referring to the CEA2010 max burst SPL  numbers.  Overall it is not a huge difference in the grand scheme of things, but just addressing the topic.

bear123 is online now  
post #87 of 99 Old 03-19-2014, 04:34 PM
 
shadyJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,743
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1330 Post(s)
Liked: 1358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

Only when measured too close to the speaker. When measured with adequate distance the results will be the same. CEA specifies 2 meters, but that's too close when measuring 5 to 20 meter wavelengths.

From this article on CEA, it look like CEA 2010A measurements have to be taken at at least 3 meters and then scaled for 1 meter, but the previous version of CEA uses 2 meters, which is what Josh does. It looks like 2010A would be a bit better, it would somewhat mitigate the compensation needed for distances from acoustic emitters.
Quote:
CEA-2010A mandates that measurements be made at at least 3 meters (in order to better sum the combinations of all radiating elements, including the drivers, ports, and passive radiators), then scaled up to 1-meter equivalents; for a 3-meter measurement, that means adding +9.5 dB
shadyJ is offline  
post #88 of 99 Old 03-19-2014, 05:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
Ozzie Isaac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 102
I wonder if the burst measurement will change since long low sweeps are becoming more prevalent in movies. Seems like long term output may become more important if this trend continues
Ozzie Isaac is offline  
post #89 of 99 Old 03-20-2014, 04:14 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Cinemafreak1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 13

Well I bought a SVS PB2000 Outlet Special for 749, so tax covered.  No issues with it such as scratches or dents.  Since its a return/upgrade it was in stock and will ship tomorrow.  Giddy already.  Will get it hooked up asap once I get it.

 

Question, do i need to break it in....keep volume down for now and crank it later?

 

Also, where should I buy a cable, MonoPrice?

 

Thanks to all for the previous posts!

 

Michael

 

P.S.  Now I want to upgrade my Paradigm Mini Monitor v6s and center.  Slippery Slope this hobby.

Cinemafreak1 is offline  
post #90 of 99 Old 03-20-2014, 05:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
airgas1998's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 42 2 30 degs N 92 54 52 degs W
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowTech1 View Post

Did you move to Michigan? If so,of course your gonna pay tax,that whole state is broke.

no it' not, but Detroit sure in the hell is.

Habit Forming....Wallet Burning Hobby....55" Oled Lg C7 55" Samsung B8500 Fald Channel Master Dvr+ Onkyo RZ900 avr Crown xls 2002 2ch amp Samsung K8500 UBR player Svs Ultra Towers/Center, Svs Satellite Surrounds Svs Pb-13 Ultra Sub Bluesound Node 2I 2nd zone room: polk lsim 703's
airgas1998 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers

Tags
Svs Pb2000 , Xv15 , Hsu Vtf3 Mk4 , Outlaw Audio Lfm 1 Ex

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off