Outlaw Audio LFM-1-EX Review

[admin]

The Outlaw Audio LFM-1-EX is a moderately large 12" ported powered subwoofer with a built in 350 watt rated amplifier. Based on our extensive testing, the LFM-1EX proved to be an overachiever at its mere $650 price tag. We did find the sub to be slightly mistuned but keeping both ports open produced the best overall sound and measured results. Two ports open also allowed us to achieve its most dynamic output while minimizing port chuffing. The fit and finish was good, though the product wasn't quite as buttoned up as some of the multi thousand dollar units we've tested. The Outlaw Audio LFM-1-EX receives the Audioholics "Bassoholic Large Room" rating, which means that this sub is recommended as maintaining adequate headroom in rooms or spaces of 3,000 to 5,000 cubic feet and/or for users who usually listen at moderate to high volume levels. The LFM-1-EX does a lot right and makes no major mistakes all while providing huge bang for the buck value and meaningful 20Hz extension. Outlaw has knocked this one out of the park as far as I'am concerned. Budget conscious sub shoppers looking to fill a large space take note.

Discuss "Outlaw Audio LFM-1-EX Review" here. Read the article.

 

[FirstReflection]

Nice!

I haven't heard the LFM-1 EX in person, but I'm rather familiar with the HSU VTF-3 MK3, which is sort of a sister model to this Outlaw branded unit. Same amp, driver and similar cabinet size, just a slightly different configuration with the driver and ports both on the bottom with the Outlaw vs. the side driver and ports on the back of the HSU version.

Once again, my subjective opinions from my listening line up pretty darn well with the measurements in this review. I found that I preferred having both ports open. I just preferred what I perceived as cleaner output with more headroom. I didn't personally find the 1-port configuration to have any real benefits. Subjectively, I thought the HSU VTF-3 MK3 played 20Hz just as loud in 2 port mode as it did in 1 port mode, but that 1 port mode just limited the overall output so that it might have been flatter, but not actually any louder. Again, just subjective listening on my part - and in a room - but it doesn't look like I was way off the mark when looking at the measurements in this review.

I like HSU's VTF-2 and VTF-3 subwoofers a lot. I think that, for the price, they offer excellent value and very good performance. For my own (very picky) tastes, they don't quite hit the very deepest 20Hz and lower stuff quite as loud and clean as I would personally like, but from about 25-30Hz on up, I think they're rather excellent. Nice transient response gives them a "clean" and "tight" sound with music that I personally really appreciate. I expect nothing less from the Outlaw brand sister models.

But to really get any lower, louder or cleaner, you have to spend more. So to me, that means these HSU/Outlaw units are doing about as well as can be done for the price.

I trust my own listening. If I'm picking a sub or forming an opinion, my own perception matters most in the end But it's always nice to see objective measurements and a professional review that line up with my own experience

Good read. And good sub!

 

[its phillip]

Thanks for the review. I bought an LFM-1 EX just a few months ago (first real sub), and I've been very happy with it

 

[55katest55]

Thanks Ricci! You're like a subwoofer legend lol.

Also everyone take note that these can be had B-stock for $574 or on sale (which occurs pretty frequently) for $549.

Btw, in the specifications/review it says "glass top," but the top is actually plexiglass. Some people may wanna know.

 

[shadyJ]

Yeah those sales that Outlaw has are a hilariously good deal, nothing else even comes close to touching that kind of bang for the buck. On the AVSforum, it looks like a lot of guys are waiting for a similar deal on black friday, however, they might be disappointed. If I remember correctly, last black friday, the deal was free shipping and half off the wireless adapter instead of a super duper discount.

A note about the part of the review where Ricci states,

...slight amount of peaking at the port tuning. This indicates that the subwoofer could use either a little less enclosure volume for this tuning which would lower the efficiency at port tuning flattening out the peak. This would in turn require longer ports to achieve the same tuning range, or that the driver attributes could be tweaked a little to compensate.

I think it's worth noting how the VTF3 mk3 and LFM-1 EX, often said to be almost identical subwoofers, differ in this respect. The VTF3 has much more port volume; its ports not only have a larger diameter but also bend around in the cabinet for a much longer run. This can be seen in Audioholic's review of the VTF3, from where these pics come from:

To Josh Ricci: do you think these larger ports address that peaking at port tuning?

I don't know how Outlaw and Hsu exactly collaborated in designing the LFM subs, but I have to wonder how and why these changes from the VTF subs came about, since they are so similar in many other respects. Did Outlaw want them for aesthetic reasons? Did Hsu want them just for the sake of maintaining some uniqueness and not having a complete clone on the market? I know the answer to those questions are probably only known to Hsu and Outlaw, I am just speculating.

Another question I have is how would mic tests would have differed with the LFM-1 sub in its normal orientation on its feet? I understand that won't have much difference in room, I am just curious how that would have affected ground plane measurements.

Oh yeah, another question for Ricci: a criticism that has been sometimes levied against the Outlaw subs is that there is not enough clearance from the ground for the driver and ports. Do you think this affects their performance in any notable way or is a legitimate point at all? Also, great review, thanks, and I'm looking forward to more like this!

 

[Ricci]

Btw, in the specifications/review it says "glass top," but the top is actually plexiglass. Some people may wanna know.

Thanks for the correction.

To Josh Ricci: do you think these larger ports address that peaking at port tuning?

I don't know.

The issue with the peak at tuning is not caused by the port size. As you maintain the same port tuning and increase the overall enclosure volume the efficiency at port tuning is increased. You could eliminate the small peak by reducing enclosure volume and thus low end efficiency slightly. Or they could tweak the driver itself and how it behaves with that volume and tuning. Or they could simply use the rumble filter or even a tiny bit of EQ to get rid of it. It is possible that it is even caused by the microphone placement relative to the ports and driver. Closer placement to the ports will accentuate their output more. In the grand scheme of things it isn't a major issue. Room acoustics will completely swamp this at the listening position in most cases.

The LFM-1 EX could use a bit more port area as it will overload the 3" ports used especially if one is blocked. Dual 4" ports would offer higher output before vent compression and noise sets in. However they also take up more enclosure volume and need to be longer to maintain the same tuning. This also drops the port resonance lower in frequency as well. Tradeoffs.

The 2 subs certainly look very similar in many aspects.

Another question I have is how would mic tests would have differed with the LFM-1 sub in its normal orientation on its feet? I understand that won't have much difference in room, I am just curious how that would have affected ground plane measurements.

Probably not much. Output might have dropped by a dB or so perhaps. Extension may have been slightly better due to the ports loading against the ground and dropping the effective tune slightly. Perhaps a slight change to the response shape. Minor effects in any event.

Oh yeah, another question for Ricci: a criticism that has been sometimes levied against the Outlaw subs is that there is not enough clearance from the ground for the driver and ports. Do you think this affects their performance in any notable way or is a legitimate point at all? Also, great review, thanks, and I'm looking forward to more like this!

Thanks.

There isn't a large amount of clearance but on a hard flat surface I don't see there being a problem. If you have very thick carpet maybe there could be some stifling of the output...Maybe... I'm speculating totally here. I like the integrated baseplates that SVS and Polk used to employ for their subs which would eliminate and questions, but that adds further size, weight and cost.

 

[nickboros]

Thanks for the correction.


Probably not much. Output might have dropped by a dB or so perhaps. Extension may have been slightly better due to the ports loading against the ground and dropping the effective tune slightly. Perhaps a slight change to the response shape. Minor effects in any event.




Thanks.

There isn't a large amount of clearance but on a hard flat surface I don't see there being a problem. If you have very thick carpet maybe there could be some stifling of the output...Maybe... I'm speculating totally here. I like the integrated baseplates that SVS and Polk used to employ for their subs which would eliminate and questions, but that adds further size, weight and cost.

I have the original Outlaw LFM1 on thick carpet in my living room. I use the spikes on the discs that are supposed to protect hardwood floors to get a little extra clearance (so that the spikes don't dig down into the carpet).

 

[j_garcia]

I haven't heard an HSU sub since the VTF-3 Mk2, but that sub was already pretty impressive. The Outlaw subs have always looked like a great value.

I have the original Outlaw LFM1 on thick carpet in my living room. I use the spikes on the discs that are supposed to protect hardwood floors to get a little extra clearance (so that the spikes don't dig down into the carpet).

The purpose of the spikes was so that they would dig down into the carpet and make contact with a solid surface as well as keeping the sub from moving around.

 

[nickboros]

I haven't heard an HSU sub since the VTF-3 Mk2, but that sub was already pretty impressive. The Outlaw subs have always looked like a great value.



The purpose of the spikes was so that they would dig down into the carpet and make contact with a solid surface as well as keeping the sub from moving around.

Yeah I know. I think that this is kind of an issue where experts have differing opinions on. Some folks will tell that that the sub needs to be decoupled from the room with something like the "subdude" (or whatever it is called). Others will say that it doesn't make much of a difference and to just use the spikes to make a solid connection to the wood floor below. I think that there is no argument that it needs the little extra clearance for the ports on the bottom, which is why I'm jacking it up a little. This puts me somewhere in the middle of having it locked down to the wood floor beneath and decoupled. But, honestly the sub isn't going anywhere. It weights around 70 pounds.

 

[gtpsuper24]

I think the subdude makes the biggest difference with a sub that doesn't have carpet spikes, like the PB12NSD or other flat bottomed subs. I use a gramma pad for my SVS cyclinder and it made a small difference, mostly stop some of the annoying vibrations that make the sub sound slightly "boomy". But you lose a little tactile feel.

 

[sholling]

The purpose of the spikes was so that they would dig down into the carpet and make contact with a solid surface as well as keeping the sub from moving around.

This is more of an issue with a front or side firing sub where the spikes help prevent front to back or side to side movement which in theory can partly counter the motion of the driver. I'm not sure that letting a spike penetrate the carpet would benefit a down firing sub.

 

[55katest55]

The purpose of the spikes was so that they would dig down into the carpet and make contact with a solid surface as well as keeping the sub from moving around.

Well, the base plates actually have a little groove at the top for the spike, and then some non-slip material on the bottom. The things are pretty damn hefty, I was impressed. I doubt they'd ever move around on those, and I also use them for extra clearance/the hell of it. Also, you could argue they help decouple/isolate the sub a bit.

 

[NewHTbuyer]

Thanks again to Audioholics for a great review. I read it right after I read the review of the new PB12-NSD over at Sound and Vision:

Review: SVS PB12-NSD Subwoofer | Sound and Vision Magazine

It is interesting to compare the 2 products. The are similar in size, woofer size, and price (when you add shipping to Outlaw's price).

Compare the measurements:

----Outlaw----SVS
Hz---dB--------dB
20---101-------110.2
25---107.3-----110.8
31.5-110.7-----112.1
40---112.3-----119
50---113.7-----120.3
63---113.8-----115.1

Also, the SVS had a flatter frequency response curve. On paper it seems to be a better product.

It was interesting to note that the reviewer had a hard time while listening to music and movies telling the SVS from the bigger, more expensive, Hsu VTF-15 he used as his reference sub, even though the VTF had higher output in both low and ultra-low bass frequencies. So, most likely, it would also be hard to tell between the Outlaw and the SVS unless you get to reference levels, except maybe down low at 20Hz. For the price, it seems like both the Outlaw and SVS are great subs.

 

[shadyJ]

I don't think the performance is as different from the subs as those numbers would indicate, even though they are going by CEA2010 testing procedures. Just look at how different S&V's CEA measurements of the VTF15h was from Audioholic's. I think the subs are too similar to measure so differently. If you want a proper comparison, send Josh Ricci a PB12 or send Brent Butterworth a LFM-1 EX, so they can use the same methods and equipment to get more comparable results. This is why I think Paul Appollonio's or Ilkka's are so far the only reliable comparisons.

 

[its phillip]

I dunno. The SVS probably has a much more capable driver and amplifier (obviously just a guess on my part). If those numbers are what it can do, it's extremely impressive for the price and definitely worth getting over the LFM-1 EX (at normal pricing). However, considering the price I paid for mine, I'm very happy with it

 

[Ricci]

Keep in mind that the subwoofers CEA2010 tested by me will be a 2m groundplane rms result which is why the SPL numbers will be much lower and more conservative. I believe that S&V is doing one meter peak tests. I would not recommend directly comparing the S&V results to the ones from subs I have tested for Audioholics, or otherwise, either way. There seems to be a rather large difference.

 

[gene]

Brents #s are NOT at all what SVS has reported on their PB12-NSD sub. I trust SVS #s b/c they are always within 1dB of what we get.

I looked at Bretts #s more closely for the HSU VTF-15H and SVS PB12-NSD. He claims both data are 2 meter yet his HSU #s at 2 meter are higher than ours at 1 meter. He added +6dB to his HSU #s but not his SVS #s. I politely pointed this out to him privately in email and he took great offense.

By my calculations, the PB12-NSD has a significant output advantage below 30Hz than the HSU-VTF-15H but the HSU produces higher #s above 30Hz. We will of course review the PB-12NSD so that all subs can be compared on equal playing fields with reproducible and accurate results.

Brent's Velodyne DD-15+ #s are higher than Josh's DD-18+ #s by a significant margin and WAY higher than my DD-15+ #s.

The bottom line is DON'T compare Brent's data to ours. His data is unique only to his testing methods which nobody else can reproduce or question apparently.

 

[DVDIT]

I was dead set to purchase the Rythmik FV12 for my dedicated 17 x 20 HT room (100% HT use, no music here) and then I read this review and now I am really confused as to which one I should pick. Price is not a factor as the Outlaw is usually on sale on Black Friday. Which one has an edge is overall sound quality and is better suited for movies.

 

[NewHTbuyer]

Well, what exactly is a potential buyer supposed to do? Frustrating. It seems that both reviewers used the CEA standards, testing at 2m. If a shopper can only compare reviews done by the same tester because the testing methods are so variable, then it is really hard to make an educated choice. Most people don't have the time and don't want to pay return shipping in order to buy both and test in their own home. I guess it is what it is. Looking forward to the Audioholics review of the PB12-NSD, for sure.

Gene, where can you find the numbers SVS posted about the PB12-NSD's output? The only graph I see on their site is a frequency response curve and it says specifically that it should not be used to judge max output. How do SVS' numbers compare to the LM-1-EX that you guys tested?

As far as DVDIT's post, it seems that the PB12 might be a good option for your HT, given that it seems to have better ultra-low bass output than the Outlaw. I would guess that it would out perform a cheaper sub like the FV12, but that is pure conjecture on my part. Since you said price is not a factor, maybe you can get 2 of the models being discussed and settle the debate!

 

[55katest55]

speaking of the EX, any potential buyers look at this thread: http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/general-av-discussions/77080-heads-up-outlaw-audio-black-friday-sale.html