Power Sound Audio XV-15 Subwoofer Review

[mdanderson]

I would caution you against making a sound quality assessment by looking at pictures of a driver. That's akin to deciding which pickup truck has greater towing capacity by looking at them from the outside, without knowing anything about how they're configured (driveline, engine type and size, etc). It's simply not an accurate way to discern capabilities. You need far more information than a photo can provide.

For example, I reviewed the Rythmik LV12R recently. The driver is nothing to look at, but the sound quality and depth it can produce are quite impressive. Were you to draw a conclusion strictly by looking at the driver you would be missing out on an excellent subwoofer. It's the sum total of the parts, and how they're implemented, that makes the package work or not work. It's impossible to look at one photo in isolation and make that type of determination.

Thanks Jman for your input. You pretty much said how I feel in regards to the pics posted by shadyj.

 

[mdanderson]

Hi Matt,

If you choose to audition a pair of XV15s in your home I'll handle all the shipping costs if you decide to return them. Our return rate is next to *0* and we have very high confidence in our products. Decide for yourself.. Just email me at support if/when you decide to order, thanks.

Tom V.
Power Sound Audio

Thanks Tom. That is certainly a generous offer and I will take you up on that. I am still trying to get my pb12 plus sold(may have to lower the price again) and as soon as I do I will contact you to order the dual xv15s. Your customer service continues to impress me with that offer. Thanks again.

 

[haraldo]

Hi Matt,

If you choose to audition a pair of XV15s in your home I'll handle all the shipping costs if you decide to return them. Our return rate is next to *0* and we have very high confidence in our products. Decide for yourself.. Just email me at support if/when you decide to order, thanks.

Tom V.
Power Sound Audio

Does that go for me too?

 

[shadyJ]

In this case the sheer mass difference between the magnets can't be ignored. Assuming nothing else is abnormal, the PB12 Plus driver should have substantially better transient response. It has a much larger magnet, a larger VC (3"), and is moving a smaller woofer. Going to two XV15s will gain you more output from 40 to 60 Hz and the benefits of multiple subs, but you will probably lose 20 Hz headroom, you will almost certainly lose sound quality, and you will gain a more distortion. It's like trading a Five Guys Burger for two Big Macs, an exchange of quality for quantity.

 

[Steve81]

In this case the sheer mass difference between the magnets can't be ignored. Assuming nothing else is abnormal, the PB12 Plus driver should have substantially better transient response.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here. The waterfall of the XV15, which is as good an indicator of transient performance as any, doesn't leave much to be desired even against the PB13U in 20Hz tune. The XV15's THD is almost certainly going to be higher than the PB12+, but I'd caution against judging a system by the magnet size of the driver alone. After all, the Hsu VTF-15H puts up quite good performance in all respects and it's not exactly packing the meatiest magnets:

Also, I'm sure you've read through this before:
Audiopulse » Myths About Subwoofers

#3 and 11 seem worth a refresher.

 

[theJman]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here. The waterfall of the XV15, which is as good an indicator of transient performance as any, doesn't leave much to be desired even against the PB13U in 20Hz tune. The XV15's THD is almost certainly going to be higher than the PB12+, but I'd caution against judging a system by the magnet size of the driver alone. After all, the Hsu VTF-15H puts up quite good performance in all respects and it's not exactly packing the meatiest magnets:

Also, I'm sure you've read through this before:
Audiopulse » Myths About Subwoofers

#3 and 11 seem worth a refresher.

Posts that contain numerous unsubstantiated inferences and suppositions are often related to either a personal bias or a general lack of knowledge. I would be surprised if his weren't attributable to one (or both) of those reasons.

 

[3db]

Having kicked the tires a bit now on my LV-12R, I would pit this ported sub against any sealed sub for musicality and tightness of bass. I have mine set for max etension as my room is not overly large and even at that setting, I can easily discern bass notes in the special affects of movies, let alone music. The more I use it, the more in awe I am of its capabilities.

 

[shadyJ]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here. The waterfall of the XV15, which is as good an indicator of transient performance as any, doesn't leave much to be desired even against the PB13U in 20Hz tune. The XV15's THD is almost certainly going to be higher than the PB12+, but I'd caution against judging a system by the magnet size of the driver alone. After all, the Hsu VTF-15H puts up quite good performance in all respects and it's not exactly packing the meatiest magnets:

Also, I'm sure you've read through this before:
Audiopulse » Myths About Subwoofers

#3 and 11 seem worth a refresher.

I get what you are saying Steve, and I understand the article on subwoofers myths, but what I am saying is not based on magnet size alone. I think the VTF15h and PB13 are good subs for contrast and comparison here. Moving mass would be a factor here, and my guess is the VTF15h has a lower moving mass than the XV15, even though it has a wider diameter VC (2.5" to 2"), because the VTF15h is probably not trying for the kind of excursion that the XV15 is claiming to have (2" peak to peak). I wouldn't be surprised if the VTF15h actually had a higher BL even with only a single magnet assembly. According to data-bass, the VTF15h's waterfall decay is quite a bit better than either the XV15 and PB13, which prompts the question, why would anyone buy any other sub if they are concerned with accuracy? I don't believe the waterfall decay chart is entirely indicative of transient response and even less indicative of overall cone control. If we were to use that measurement as an indicator of a sub's articulation, we are forced to admit that the VTF15h would be a much tighter subwoofer than a sealed TC Sounds LMS Ultra. However, Paul Apollonio, in his review of the VTF15h, complained about the how the low BL of the VTF15h affects its cone control; XV15 is bound to be worse.

As for the PB13, while its moving mass is certainly going to be much greater, its 'force factor' is also likely to be far greater as well. Although I don't have any measurements to back this up, I would expect the PB13 to have a much superior transient response to either the VTF15h or XV15. I think you would also be surprised if that were not the case. I would love to see the results of a blind shoot out with respects to sound quality between these three subs.

 

[billy p]

I wouldn't go that far...I've heard sealed units using the same mfg drivers as my ported sub and however close they are they do not sound exactly the same. Hence, why I'm going with a sealed unit...because they usually tend to give you more headroom in the upper bass region where the tacticle bass is located likely above >40hz and do a better job imho of pressurizing a room if properly EQed....I'm not talking about ported subs with variable tunning options or port plugs but strictly sealed units. After hearing 15" dual opposed units my mind has wonder off into the abyss...lol.

 

[shadyJ]

Having kicked the tires a bit now on my LV-12R, I would pit this ported sub against any sealed sub for musicality and tightness of bass. I have mine set for max etension as my room is not overly large and even at that setting, I can easily discern bass notes in the special affects of movies, let alone music. The more I use it, the more in awe I am of its capabilities.

What's funny is Brian Ping says he hates how it sounds in the extension setting, he thinks it sounds bloated. No doubt, the LV12r is a great sub.

 

[Steve81]

Moving mass would be a factor here, and my guess is the VTF15h has a lower moving mass than the XV15, even though it has a wider diameter VC (2.5" to 2"), because the VTF15h is probably not trying for the kind of excursion that the XV15 is claiming to have (2" peak to peak).

While Hsu doesn't appear to talk about it much, the VTF15's driver still has to be capable of comparable excursion to reach the output figures it does in sealed mode. 109.4dB @ 2m @ 31.5Hz requires a bit over 1" of xmax from a 15" driver (so 2" peak to peak).

According to data-bass, the VTF15h's waterfall decay is quite a bit better than either the XV15 and PB13, which prompts the question, why would anyone buy any other sub if they are concerned with accuracy?

#13 on the myths list. So long as it's not grossly out of whack, it's just not that significant to our perceptions.

I don't believe the waterfall decay chart is entirely indicative of transient response and even less indicative of overall cone control.

What do you feel is missing? You can also look at the spectrogram and impulse response to get a different perspective on the data, but the waterfall still gives a pretty good picture.

If we were to use that measurement as an indicator of a sub's articulation, we are forced to admit that the VTF15h would be a much tighter subwoofer than a sealed TC Sounds LMS Ultra.

Neither really exhibit any major problems, though it should be noted that the scale has changed (going from 50ms increments to 60ms increments).

However, Paul Apollonio, in his review of the VTF15h, complained about the how the low BL of the VTF15h affects its cone control

Judging by Josh's full compliment of measurements, I wouldn't worry about it a whole lot.

I would expect the PB13 to have a much superior transient response to either the VTF15h or XV15.
I think you would also be surprised if that were not the case.

Not really. In my subwoofer progression from the PC12-NSD to the PB13U, the difference in raw power was readily apparent. Differences due to transient response? Not really. I've also spent time comparing the sealed mode of the PB13 to the ported modes and couldn't really discern anything to do with timing in spite of the cleaner waterfall and lack of issues with GD.

 

[3db]

What's funny is Brian Ping says he hates how it sounds in the extension setting, he thinks it sounds bloated. No doubt, the LV12r is a great sub.

I hear no bloated sound what's so ever. I will set it up to the middle setting for comparison sake but I doubt I will notice much of a difference.

 

[shadyJ]

That's a good point about the Hsu's excursion. As for the waterfall data, my understanding is it only measures stored energy of the whole unit. Since it only measures decay, you only have one part of transient response there. I'm not sure how you would really usefully gauge the perception of transient response outside of a blind A/B immediate switching comparison. Here's the thing: if it were really the case that these heavily built drivers gain you nothing in terms of transient response, why would anyone go through the trouble and expense of building them? What's the point in all these efforts for better cone control when a $1k driver is as qualitatively good as a $100 driver? As for your comparisons between the PB12 and various modes of the PB13, it doesn't sound like they were done in a manner that dealt with the constraints of aural memory.

 

[Steve81]

As for the waterfall data, my understanding is it only measures stored energy of the whole unit. Since it only measures decay, you only have one part of transient response there.

The waterfall only looks at the decay, but the GD, spectrogram, and impulse response give a good idea of the rest of the picture. You'll note on the spectrogram and impulse response, you get to see what's happening before the 0ms mark.

Here's the thing: if it were really the case that these heavily built drivers gain you nothing in terms of transient response, why would anyone go through the trouble and expense of building them? What's the point in all these efforts for better cone control when a $1k driver is as qualitatively good as a $100 driver?

Higher sensitivity, greater linear excursion, smaller enclosures, etc.

As for your comparisons between the PB12 and various modes of the PB13, it doesn't sound like they were done in a manner that dealt with the constraints of aural memory.

It wasn't a formal instant switch ABX test to be sure; however, the testing of the PB13 modes was a sighted test w/ switch times of under a minute with multiple trials without any significant difference perceived.

 

[shadyJ]

I can't really argue about the spectrogram, because I don't know how to compare those graphs meaningfully. As for the Impulse response, I think that only tells a little bit of the story. If we are to use that as a measure of transient response, the VTF15h and XV15 are tighter subs than the Rythmik FV15HP or any of the SVS subs. I can't believe that would be the case. Like I said, there really needs to be some blind testing of the qualitative aspects of these subs. If you are correct, all these subs sound the same. I don't believe that is true from experience.

 

[Steve81]

I can't really argue about the spectrogram, because I don't know how to compare those graphs meaningfully.

It's just another representation of the same data for the most part; you get time (y-axis), frequency (x-axis), and intensity (color).

As for the Impulse response, I think that only tells a little bit of the story. If we are to use that as a measure of transient response, the VTF15h and XV15 are tighter subs than the Rythmik FV15HP or any of the SVS subs. I can't believe that would be the case.

While it's not as intuitive to look at as a waterfall, I'm guessing you're seeing the large waves in the Rythmik and SVS's impulse responses which would correspond with the large humps in their waterfall plots around port tune.

If you are correct, all these subs sound the same. I don't believe that is true from experience.

I wouldn't suggest that they all sound the same; differences in FR, distortion profiles, and how these subs behave at high output levels will easily correlate with audible differences. Issues related with damping/ringing certainly can cause audible differences as well, but among a group of fairly high quality subs (i.e. the VTF15H, XV15, PB12+), I'd expect that to be much less of a factor as the myths article indicates. Toss in a raw Danley DTS-10 OTOH...

Like I said, there really needs to be some blind testing of the qualitative aspects of these subs.

What did you have in mind? People on the various A/V forums have held several blind tests over the years. I've certainly seen at least one or two in the past where the preconceptions of "boomy" ported subs vs "tight" sealed subs went out the window once things were in play.

 

[shadyJ]

In the impulse response, I don't think the large waves are due to the tuning points in the SVS and Rythmik subs. After all, even the SB12 and PB13 in sealed mode have them, but the VTF15h doesn't in either its ported or sealed modes. I get what the impulse response means, but I don't know what that means in terms of audibility. I also don't quite understand exactly how strongly it correlates with cone control. Which leads me to qualitative blind testing...

What did you have in mind? People on the various A/V forums have held several blind tests over the years. I've certainly seen at least one or two in the past where the preconceptions of "boomy" ported subs vs "tight" sealed subs went out the window once things were in play.

The only one I can think of is where the Kansas City crew did some blind testing between a few subs, the VTF15h, sealed Captivator, and Submersive were there, as well as something from Chase Home Theater. I thought that was a pretty good demonstration, however it sounds like most of the demo material was output and extension oriented, and most of their testing was done at very high volume levels. Also there was apperantly a lot of downtime between each sub's turn. I would prefer something like that, but at volumes which don't push the xmax on any sub, and with immediate switching back and forth- and also using demo material more suited toward a qualitative comparison. Throw in a good variety of subs in such a comparison (not just a bunch of super subs), and I think you would have something more relevant to those more concerned with accuracy.

 

[Steve81]

In the impulse response, I don't think the large waves are due to the tuning points in the SVS and Rythmik subs. After all, even the SB12 and PB13 in sealed mode have them, but the VTF15h doesn't in either its ported or sealed modes.

The PB13 in sealed mode doesn't have significant delayed energy present in its waterfall, nor does any appear in the impulse response that I see. The SB12 of course does due to the signal shaping present which creates a fairly sharp low end rolloff.

I get what the impulse response means, but I don't know what that means in terms of audibility.

Not much practically (at least IMO). Beyond our ear's poor sensitivity to the frequencies involved (~20Hz), the reality is that while a sub might ring a bit at low frequencies, a typical listening room is likely to swamp that by a big margin.

I also don't quite understand exactly how strongly it correlates with cone control.

I'm not really sure how you're separating "cone control" from these measurements. Everything Josh does is a measure of how well controlled a subwoofer system is; if a sub is producing a linear FR with low distortion and no ringing/delayed energy, the cone has to be under tight control to achieve these things.

The only one I can think of is where the Kansas City crew did some blind testing between a few subs

There was at least one or two blind tests years ago of the PB13 vs the JL f113 as well that I've seen mention as well which may not have been so "SPL drag race" oriented.

 

[mdanderson]

Finally got my SVS PB12-plus sold and I now have dual XV15s from PSA. The setup took awhile but I finally got everything level matched and music sounds very nice as well as really good low extension in the bass for bluray movies. I am glad I decided to try a dual configuration. Way to go PSA for making such quality products and having good customer service too.

 

[DannyA]

I've had my new XS-15 (sealed sub) for a couple of weeks now and I am extremely pleased. I'm still working on tuning and placement but I'm close. Very close. I promise a non-technical mini review soon.
I also am a HUGE Rush fan and have seen them many times. So that was one of the first things I did was play "Hemispheres\LaVilla Strangiato". A song with a lot of range, high and low. Once I dialed it in to match my mains, it sounded so good I thought I was hearing it for the first time. I watched a couple of blu ray movies, Pacific Rim and The Hobbit. Both sounded great and rocked the room.

Thanks Josh for the XV-15 review and Tom for a great sub!