Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hsu vtf-15h

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hsu vtf-15h

    http://www.hsuresearch.com/products/vtf-15h.html

    The new VTF-15H features new integrated flare triangular ports (patent pending), variable Q control, and hybrid operation (including both sealed and ported modes). Between the Q control, operating modes, and EQ choices, this is the most flexible subwoofer we have offered to date, catering to virtually any audiophile’s preferences. The new 15-inch woofer is a very low Q (0.25), low inductance woofer resulting in very high efficiency and high headroom. Bass is extremely tight, especially when you set the Q control to a low Q.

    The use of the new integrated flare triangular port allows us to get the biggest possible port for each subwoofer. We are no longer limited by diameter of standard size port tubes. The triangular ports tuck away nicely in the corners of the panel, allowing a compact panel size to accommodate a large woofer and large ports and yet provide a visually striking look.

    In fact, the new subwoofer, in our opinion, is also our best looking sub to date. It has a refreshing, unique and stylish look.
    Product Pricing: $879 base price in Satin Black finish, $999 base price in Rosenut real wood veneer finish (fully veneered on all panels), $50 per unit discount when purchasing multiples, best-in-class pricing on large non-vinyl black enclosure and best-in-class pricing on large fully veneered enclosure

    Product Warranty: 7 years on driver, up to 5 years on electronics (2 years standard), +$100 for extended warranty on electronics, warranty is transferable, best-in-class warranty coverage

    Driver Design: 15” front-firing custom-made driver, designed from the ground up for exceptionally flat frequency response and low distortion, best-in-class response linearity

    Amplifier Design: 1400w short-term, 350w continuous high headroom amplifier designed from the ground up with custom EQ, soft clipping, subsonic filtering, class A/B output stage, phase switch, 24dB/oct low-pass adjustable crossover, continuously adjustable Q, best-in-class amplifier feature set

    Enclosure Design: 25”x18”x26” HxWxD (add 1” H for feet, 1” D for grille, 1” D for amp controls) enclosure designed from the ground up with rounded corners and smooth edges, non-vinyl finishes, front-firing radiating elements, internal bracing on all panels, ultra-high grade acoustic foam internal lining, state-of-the-art enclosure design with cutting-edge industrial design

    Port Design: Dual front-firing triangular slot ports, designed from the ground up with large cross-sectional area, continuously flared on both ends, used for variable tuning and for bracing the enclosure, unique and innovative patent-pending port design

    Grille Design: 1” deep V-shaped cloth grille, designed from the ground up to be contoured and not cover the ports, with solid metal pins to fit soft rubber grommets, distinctive and attractive grille design

    Feet Design: 1” tall and 2.5” diameter silicone disc feet, designed from the ground up to be soft and durable, suitable for all flooring surfaces, practical and flexible feet design

    Hybrid Tuning: Support for five different operating modes, including both ported and sealed hybrid modes, best-in-class operating mode flexibility

    Frequency Response: +/- 2dB from 15-200Hz in ported max extension mode (measured outside, Q = 0.7), best-in-class upper/mid/deep bass frequency response linearity

    Output Capability: 123-125dB max clean CEA2010 peak output capability from 40-100Hz, 121dB @ 31.5Hz, 118dB @ 25Hz, 114dB @ 20Hz (measured outside @ 1m distance, both ports open), best-in-class max clean peak output capability using CEA2010 stepped harmonic distortion limits
    Most posts made under this account probably influenced by "kool-aid". Done drinking what Chase is offering, and my current views have significantly changed.

  • #2
    Someone might want to check my math here, but here's what I drew up for comparisons:

    CS 18.1 - $898

    20 Hz - 111 dB
    25 Hz - 115 dB
    31.5 Hz - 119 dB
    40-100 Hz average - 126 dB

    HSU VTF-15H - $879

    20 Hz: 114dB
    25 Hz: 118dB
    31.5 Hz: 121dB
    40-100 Hz: 123-125dB

    Of note here of course is that you've purchased the amp for a second 18.1(P) already with that $898.

    CS 18.2 - $1396

    20 Hz - 117 dB
    25 Hz - 121 dB
    31.5 Hz - 125 dB
    40-100 Hz average - 131 dB

    HSU VTF-15H x 2 - $1658

    20 Hz: 120dB
    25 Hz: 124dB
    31.5 Hz: 127dB
    40-100 Hz: 129-131dB

    Here things start to get a little out of balance with the VTF-15H pair running 20% more than an 18.2 or 18.T pair. So I figured the ~$2500 ballpark makes for a good shootout between two pairs of 18.1T, or dual 18.2s (same price, different placement flexibility):

    CS 18.4 - $2652

    20 Hz - 123 dB
    25 Hz - 127 dB
    31.5 Hz - 134 dB
    40-100 Hz average - 137 dB

    HSU VTF-15H x 3 - $2487

    20 Hz: 123dB
    25 Hz: 127dB
    31.5 Hz: 130dB
    40-100 Hz: 132-134dB

    What I see is, as close a dollar for dollar comparison as we can get, the two are matched around the tuning point of the ported 15! The 18's have a good edge in mid-bass, and I can only assume the 18's will take over below tuning for those infrasonics.

    I hope this is useful for anyone wanting to do the same comparison in their research. It's getting very exciting watching the subwoofer market explode with incredible options!
    Most posts made under this account probably influenced by "kool-aid". Done drinking what Chase is offering, and my current views have significantly changed.

    Comment


    • #3
      Interesting comparison thanks for posting that. I wonder how do you measure a dual opposed driver sub outdoors since the mic has to be placed in front of one of the drivers at a given distance? The other driver on the opposite side is fireing away from the mic. This would seem that the dual opposed driver sub would gain more in a room like in a corner where each driver can face its own wall...just a thought could be way off base on that.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by D.T.MIKE
        Interesting comparison thanks for posting that. I wonder how do you measure a dual opposed driver sub outdoors since the mic has to be placed in front of one of the drivers at a given distance? The other driver on the opposite side is fireing away from the mic. This would seem that the dual opposed driver sub would gain more in a room like in a corner where each driver can face its own wall...just a thought could be way off base on that.
        I asked this question back when Craig first tested it. He pointed the mic at the side of the 18.2, both drivers perpendicular to the microphones direction. Had a hard time believing it wouldn't make a difference, but with the length of the low frequencies, and the non-directionality, he assured me it didn't.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by LilGator
          Someone might want to check my math here, but here's what I drew up for comparisons:

          CS 18.1 - $898

          20 Hz - 111 dB
          25 Hz - 115 dB
          31.5 Hz - 119 dB
          40-100 Hz average - 126 dB

          HSU VTF-15H - $879

          20 Hz: 114dB
          25 Hz: 118dB
          31.5 Hz: 121dB
          40-100 Hz: 123-125dB

          Of note here of course is that you've purchased the amp for a second 18.1(P) already with that $898.

          CS 18.2 - $1396

          20 Hz - 117 dB
          25 Hz - 121 dB
          31.5 Hz - 125 dB
          40-100 Hz average - 131 dB

          HSU VTF-15H x 2 - $1658

          20 Hz: 120dB
          25 Hz: 124dB
          31.5 Hz: 127dB
          40-100 Hz: 129-131dB

          Here things start to get a little out of balance with the VTF-15H pair running 20% more than an 18.2 or 18.T pair. So I figured the ~$2500 ballpark makes for a good shootout between two pairs of 18.1T, or dual 18.2s (same price, different placement flexibility):

          CS 18.4 - $2652

          20 Hz - 123 dB
          25 Hz - 127 dB
          31.5 Hz - 134 dB
          40-100 Hz average - 137 dB

          HSU VTF-15H x 3 - $2487

          20 Hz: 123dB
          25 Hz: 127dB
          31.5 Hz: 130dB
          40-100 Hz: 132-134dB

          What I see is, as close a dollar for dollar comparison as we can get, the two are matched around the tuning point of the ported 15! The 18's have a good edge in mid-bass, and I can only assume the 18's will take over below tuning for those infrasonics.

          I hope this is useful for anyone wanting to do the same comparison in their research. It's getting very exciting watching the subwoofer market explode with incredible options!
          Good comparison ... now ... I know this will get a few people miffed, but that's ok.

          Bold added for emphasis ...

          The CEA-2010 standard not only allows for over 40% of distortion elements in the 2nd to 5th harmonics, it also only requires a short term burst. For example, at 20 Hz, the tone bursts lasts 0.325 second.

          The CS series of subwoofers will lose 3 dB and the Hsu will lose 6 dB after this 0.325 second burst is done.

          Several posts have been made on AVS about how this standard is "the" standard.

          Our posted numbers on our web site were for long term sine waves (and very conservative numbers) using less than 10% THD for the standard.

          Five years ago, producing a sine wave with less than 10% THD was the standard.

          Now a tone burst of less than 1/3rd of a second with 40% THD is the standard.

          This is called PROGRESS?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by craigsub
            The CS series of subwoofers will lose 3 dB and the Hsu will lose 6 dB after this 0.325 second burst is done.
            Thanks for the good points. Can you elaborate on this part- is it because of different amp strategies?

            Oh, out of curiosity, why is it called the CEA-2010 standard, if it was published in '06?
            Most posts made under this account probably influenced by "kool-aid". Done drinking what Chase is offering, and my current views have significantly changed.

            Comment


            • #7
              CEA-2010 Standard - Standard Method of Measurement for Powered Subwoofers

              Originally posted by craigsub
              Good comparison ... now ... I know this will get a few people miffed, but that's ok.

              Bold added for emphasis ...

              The CEA-2010 standard not only allows for over 40% of distortion elements in the 2nd to 5th harmonics, it also only requires a short term burst. For example, at 20 Hz, the tone bursts lasts 0.325 second.

              The CS series of subwoofers will lose 3 dB and the Hsu will lose 6 dB after this 0.325 second burst is done.

              Several posts have been made on AVS about how this standard is "the" standard.

              Our posted numbers on our web site were for long term sine waves (and very conservative numbers) using less than 10% THD for the standard.

              Five years ago, producing a sine wave with less than 10% THD was the standard.

              Now a tone burst of less than 1/3rd of a second with 40% THD is the standard.

              This is called PROGRESS?
              Interesting.

              Any background on why this new standard emerged?

              CEA-2010 (ANSI) - $57
              --- CEA-2010 Preview (table of contents)
              CEA
              CEA Home Theater Recommended Practice: Audio Design (CEA/CEDIA-CEB22) [partial]


              Mike


              Standard Method of Measurement for Powered Subwoofers
              Document Number: CEA-2010 (ANSI)
              Description: This standard defines a method for measuring the audio performance of powered subwoofers
              Product Mark:

              Committee: R3 Audio Systems Committee
              Publication Date: November 2006
              Price: $57.00 (Standard) $42.75 (Member)
              Keywords: Subwoofer; Home Audio; Test Procedure; Method Of Measurement; Sound Pressure Level; Room Correction; Ground Plane Test; Bass; Tone Burst; Subwoofer Rating; Subwoofer Reporting; CEA-2010; Low Frequency; Audio; Speaker; SPL; Standard; CEA
              HT Gear (AVS Link)
              Rk: MA WR-37-32
              Pwr: 20A, Surge-X SEQ, M1500-UPS
              Proj: JVC RS20, 128" 2.4:1 CaradaBW, ISCOIIIL, CineSlide, RadianceXE
              Cbl: DirectTV C31/700 Genie receiver
              Rec: 5308CI + XPA-3
              BR: Oppo BDP-103
              Gm: 360 Pro
              LR/C: RS1KSig/RSC200Sig
              S/R: RSS300/RS250MkII
              Sub: SVS PB12-Ultra/2
              Off: HRT MS DAC, USP-1, UPA-2, ERC-1, Ultra10, WAF-1 Ninja+No-Rez
              Off2: Gizmo, WAF-1
              TCA: 3x Gizmo 1.0or,5x v1.0M; 5xWAF-1

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by LilGator
                Thanks for the good points. Can you elaborate on this part- is it because of different amp strategies?

                Oh, out of curiosity, why is it called the CEA-2010 standard, if it was published in '06?
                The Hsu amplifier is rated at 1400 Watts short term and 350 watts RMS, which is 6 dB. Our amps have 3 dB short term headroom.

                Our drivers also mesh well with the short term abilities of the amps.

                Typically, the higher the headroom, the shorter term the tone burst will be.

                It would really take a qualified electrician to speak to how an amp using 430 watts of power consumption can deliver 1400 watt short term peaks.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by craigsub
                  Our posted numbers on our web site were for long term sine waves (and very conservative numbers) using less than 10% THD for the standard.
                  I suspect that higher posted spl is like advertising higher watts for the sole purpose of a better sales pitch. When watching a movie with a long powerful LFE bass note to me it would seem it is more important for the sub to be able to sustain maximum spl during that entire duration and not just for a very brief moment. Of course CHT can always up the tested spl on their subs by following the CEA-2010 standard. :yes:

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    CEA Standards

                    Originally posted by LilGator
                    Thanks for the good points. Can you elaborate on this part- is it because of different amp strategies?

                    Oh, out of curiosity, why is it called the CEA-2010 standard, if it was published in '06?
                    Originally posted by Mike_TX
                    Interesting.

                    Any background on why this new standard emerged?

                    CEA-2010 (ANSI) - $57
                    --- CEA-2010 Preview (table of contents)
                    CEA
                    CEA Home Theater Recommended Practice: Audio Design (CEA/CEDIA-CEB22) [partial]


                    Mike


                    Standard Method of Measurement for Powered Subwoofers
                    Document Number: CEA-2010 (ANSI)
                    Description: This standard defines a method for measuring the audio performance of powered subwoofers
                    Product Mark:

                    Committee: R3 Audio Systems Committee
                    Publication Date: November 2006
                    Price: $57.00 (Standard) $42.75 (Member)
                    Keywords: Subwoofer; Home Audio; Test Procedure; Method Of Measurement; Sound Pressure Level; Room Correction; Ground Plane Test; Bass; Tone Burst; Subwoofer Rating; Subwoofer Reporting; CEA-2010; Low Frequency; Audio; Speaker; SPL; Standard; CEA
                    The "2010" may not be related to the date, but rather a series of standards and it just happens to coincide with the date.

                    CEA Standards

                    Also...

                    HT Shack - CEA-2010 Standard Compilation (by Ilkka Rissanen)
                    HT Gear (AVS Link)
                    Rk: MA WR-37-32
                    Pwr: 20A, Surge-X SEQ, M1500-UPS
                    Proj: JVC RS20, 128" 2.4:1 CaradaBW, ISCOIIIL, CineSlide, RadianceXE
                    Cbl: DirectTV C31/700 Genie receiver
                    Rec: 5308CI + XPA-3
                    BR: Oppo BDP-103
                    Gm: 360 Pro
                    LR/C: RS1KSig/RSC200Sig
                    S/R: RSS300/RS250MkII
                    Sub: SVS PB12-Ultra/2
                    Off: HRT MS DAC, USP-1, UPA-2, ERC-1, Ultra10, WAF-1 Ninja+No-Rez
                    Off2: Gizmo, WAF-1
                    TCA: 3x Gizmo 1.0or,5x v1.0M; 5xWAF-1

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by D.T.MIKE
                      I suspect that higher posted spl is like advertising higher watts for the sole purpose of a better sales pitch. When watching a movie with a long powerful LFE bass note to me it would seem it is more important for the sub to be able to sustain maximum spl during that entire duration and not just for a very brief moment. Of course CHT can always up the tested spl on their subs by following the CEA-2010 standard. :yes:
                      I agree with D.T.MIKE.
                      Many so called "standards" are stupid and are non-optimal tests of how you would use a product, but still exist.
                      I wonder how this one came into existance.
                      However, given the Ilkka ratings and promulgation of advertising using this "standard" it might benefit CHT to:

                      1) measure with this CEA-2010 standard (under duress perhaps)
                      2) publish both current figures and #1 above to show the differences and potentially misleading figures (intended or not) from other companies

                      I think that would show "better" numbers for CHT and educate people as well.
                      It's not all about the numbers, but this is the internet, and people will look at them.

                      Just my 2 cents (or more...)


                      Mike
                      HT Gear (AVS Link)
                      Rk: MA WR-37-32
                      Pwr: 20A, Surge-X SEQ, M1500-UPS
                      Proj: JVC RS20, 128" 2.4:1 CaradaBW, ISCOIIIL, CineSlide, RadianceXE
                      Cbl: DirectTV C31/700 Genie receiver
                      Rec: 5308CI + XPA-3
                      BR: Oppo BDP-103
                      Gm: 360 Pro
                      LR/C: RS1KSig/RSC200Sig
                      S/R: RSS300/RS250MkII
                      Sub: SVS PB12-Ultra/2
                      Off: HRT MS DAC, USP-1, UPA-2, ERC-1, Ultra10, WAF-1 Ninja+No-Rez
                      Off2: Gizmo, WAF-1
                      TCA: 3x Gizmo 1.0or,5x v1.0M; 5xWAF-1

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mike_TX
                        I agree with D.T.MIKE.
                        Many so called "standards" are stupid and are non-optimal tests of how you would use a product, but still exist.
                        I wonder how this one came into existance.
                        However, given the Ilkka ratings and promulgation of advertising using this "standard" it might benefit CHT to:

                        1) measure with this CEA-2010 standard (under duress perhaps)
                        2) publish both current figures and #1 above to show the differences and potentially misleading figures (intended or not) from other companies

                        I think that would show "better" numbers for CHT and educate people as well.
                        It's not all about the numbers, but this is the internet, and people will look at them.

                        Just my 2 cents (or more...)


                        Mike
                        +1

                        To keep everyone on the same page and minimize confusion, you might as well provide specs to the "standard" that others seem to be using. But I think it's great to have an even better standard for your products and provide that as well. Maybe it will open others up to the challenge if you provide numbers with a stricter test.

                        I do think I remember Danley testing with sine waves for the DTS-10.
                        Most posts made under this account probably influenced by "kool-aid". Done drinking what Chase is offering, and my current views have significantly changed.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by craigsub
                          The Hsu amplifier is rated at 1400 Watts short term and 350 watts RMS, which is 6 dB. Our amps have 3 dB short term headroom.

                          Our drivers also mesh well with the short term abilities of the amps.

                          Typically, the higher the headroom, the shorter term the tone burst will be.

                          It would really take a qualified electrician to speak to how an amp using 430 watts of power consumption can deliver 1400 watt short term peaks.
                          Thanks, that makes sense. It's obvious why they preferred specs with short burst measurements, a 6dB swing is pretty hefty padding.
                          Most posts made under this account probably influenced by "kool-aid". Done drinking what Chase is offering, and my current views have significantly changed.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by LilGator
                            +1

                            To keep everyone on the same page and minimize confusion, you might as well provide specs to the "standard" that others seem to be using. But I think it's great to have an even better standard for your products and provide that as well. Maybe it will open others up to the challenge if you provide numbers with a stricter test.

                            I do think I remember Danley testing with sine waves for the DTS-10.
                            +2 "thumbsup:
                            Denon 4311ci; MINIdsp; XPR-5; LS6 Line Arrays; LS-C Center Channel; A/V-1RS Surounds; Quad DIY LMS-Ultras Powered By LG Clones; Panny AE-8000u; 110" 2:35 Screen; Oppo BDP-103; Belkin PF60; Harmony ONE

                            2ch: Airmotiv 6's, Airport Express

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Here is Tom Danley's post from AVS ...

                              Originally posted by Tom Danley
                              Hi all

                              Mike has taken the measurements according to the CEA 2010 criteria, like Illkka used except Mike measured at 2 meters for the values listed and we used a steady state sine wave instead of a tone burst..

                              These are steady state sine wave values (which is unavoidably harsh but we have not found an easy way yet to do it with a tone burst, with the test equipment we have.).
                              This is a pain in the rear too and we will re-visit this when we find an easier way to do it, but the weighted harmonic approach makes sense relative to perceptual masking..

                              So, anyway as of now, using a sine wave, one DTS-10 in half space, at two meters, reaches the following levels;
                              CEA 2010 Max RMS Output @ 2mtrs.
                              12Hz 102dB
                              16Hz 108dB
                              20Hz 109dB
                              25Hz 111dB
                              31.5 114dB
                              40Hz 114dB
                              50Hz 117dB
                              63Hz 115dB
                              80Hz 127 dB
                              Ultra low AVG 20-31.5Hz
                              111.3dB
                              Low Bass 40-63Hz
                              114.3
                              20Hz-80Hz AVG
                              115dB
                              I am keen to see how different two are, with our other Tapped horns there is a large improvement in the curve when you have two vs one.
                              Initially I had thought it would take two in a dedicated room, or four in a large room to reach the right fear factor.
                              When we can we will measure a pair the same way in half space, this will be significantly higher and produce a flatter response curve too..
                              Anyway, for those who were waiting for some comparable numbers, here are some to start with.
                              Best and happy listening.
                              Tom Danley

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X