Used hsu vtf3-mk3 or new SVS pb1000

[Jonny Rotten]

I have a chance to buy the hsu used.How does it compare to the smaller svs(new)?Same price.How is the reputation of hsu?(longevity) 22x22x8 room.I know the svs is small,but will eventually get another,or just the one used hsu...opinions?

 

[shadyJ]

Lol, the PB1000 would get stomped on by the Hsu. The VTF3 a lot more powerful, but it is a lot bigger. The only thing going for the PB1000 is its long warranty, but I would guess you would need a stack of them to compete with the output of the Hsu. Hsu is a pretty reliable brand, I've had my two VTF3s for a few years now (one was bought in Feb 07), never had a problem with either one or any of my other Hsu subs, its quality stuff. For your nearly 4k cubic ft room you are going to want something with serious power, and if you are crazy like me you will add a bunch more beastly subs down the road too.

 

[mike c]

Lol, the PB1000 would get stomped on by the Hsu. The VTF3 a lot more powerful, but it is a lot bigger. The only thing going for the PB1000 is its long warranty, but I would guess you would need a stack of them to compete with the output of the Hsu. Hsu is a pretty reliable brand, I've had my two VTF3s for a few years now (one was bought in Feb 07), never had a problem with either one or any of my other Hsu subs, its quality stuff. For your nearly 4k cubic ft room you are going to want something with serious power, and if you are crazy like me you will add a bunch more beastly subs down the road too.

yes, one on one, the 3.3 would "stomp" the PB1000.

to compete? it would take less than 2 PB1000's based on Ed M's statement

Dual PB-1000 will outperform a single PB12-NSD or PC12-NSD, on average with about 40-50% more max output. This is to be expected since they have more driver area, more internal enclosure volume and more port area - of course they cost more too.

 

[shadyJ]

The NSDs aren't exactly powerhouse subwoofers themselves. I can believe two PB1000s would outperform a NSD, but I don't believe that about the VTF3, not even if the 1000s were co-located.

 

[Jonny Rotten]

So it sounds like the Hsu is the clear winner.Would you be comfortable buying a six year old sub?.If something did blow on the hsu.what would it likly be,and how much to fix it?
Might as well figure worst case scenario and go from there LOL
At $475 would I be a fool not to buy it,assuming its perfect

 

[mike c]

The NSDs aren't exactly powerhouse subwoofers themselves. I can believe two PB1000s would outperform a NSD, but I don't believe that about the VTF3, not even if the 1000s were co-located.

is that because HSU's are always better than SVS'es?

based on the CEA numbers below (unless i copied something wrong), it doesn't seem to have a frequency where there's more than 3db more output over the SVS.
and if dual PB1000's are 2-3db better than a PB12NSD. then yeah, 2 PB1000's 'compete' with a 3.3.

i'm an SVS fanboy ... but based on numbers.
you're a HSU fanboy ... but based on blind faith.

 

[Steve81]

So it sounds like the Hsu is the clear winner.

One to one, there's no question in my mind that a VTF3 can deliver more clean output than a single PB1000.

Would you be comfortable buying a six year old sub?

Personally, no. I purchased all of the other speakers in my surround setup used, but the subwoofer is the one thing I've repeatedly purchased new. Then again, I may well just be a sucker.

If something did blow on the hsu.what would it likly be,and how much to fix it?

Probably the amplifier; don't know the repair cost, but a quick e-mail to Hsu would reveal that.

 

[lsiberian]

The NSDs aren't exactly powerhouse subwoofers themselves. I can believe two PB1000s would outperform a NSD, but I don't believe that about the VTF3, not even if the 1000s were co-located.

It should be noted that sealed subs typically have superior performance on the upper end. Dual subs also have the advantage of dual placement which in modeling by HK was shown to be nearly as good as 4 subs. When placed midwall on opposing sides of a rectangular room. You also get the benefits of having a sealed sub.

 

[shadyJ]

is that because HSU's are always better than SVS'es?

based on the CEA numbers below (unless i copied something wrong), it doesn't seem to have a frequency where there's more than 3db more output over the SVS.
and if dual PB1000's are 2-3db better than a PB12NSD. then yeah, 2 PB1000's 'compete' with a 3.3.



i'm an SVS fanboy ... but based on numbers.
you're a HSU fanboy ... but based on blind faith.

We have been through this, I don't regard those measurements as comparable. There are too many differences between the HTS and audioholics tests, and the HTS tests were done before CEA2010 was even thought of. The tests need to be redone in the same conditions with the same equipment and by the same person for a proper comparison. If the Outlaw EX has such a performance lead over the PB12 NSD, there is no doubt that the VTF3 will. This summer I ought to break out my VTF3s and Outlaw EXs to a parking lot or a field and put the matter to rest once and for all! Also I don't think Hsus are always better than SVS, and I don't think Hsu has any products that perform competitively against the Plus or Ultra subs. I just don't think the NSD or 1000 lines are a great value in terms of performance.

 

[lsiberian]

We have been through this, I don't regard those measurements as comparable. There are too many differences between the HTS and audioholics tests, and the HTS tests were done before CEA2010 was even thought of. The tests need to be redone in the same conditions with the same equipment and by the same person for a proper comparison. If the Outlaw EX has such a performance lead over the PB12 NSD, there is no doubt that the VTF3 will. This summer I ought to break out my VTF3s and Outlaw EXs to a parking lot or a field and put the matter to rest once and for all! Also I don't think Hsus are always better than SVS, and I don't think Hsu has any products that perform competitively against the Plus or Ultra subs. I just don't think the NSD or 1000 lines are a great value in terms of performance.

What differences are you talking about? From what I can tell the measurements were done in a very similar way. I trust Ricci as much as I true Illka and from what I've seen the methodologies are similar enough to be comparable. It should be noted SVS has made numerous changes to their products since the HTS measurements too.

We are obviously splitting hairs because HSU and SVS both offer great products worthy of any home theater, but I don't buy that Ricci did a poor job in his testing.

 

[shadyJ]

So it sounds like the Hsu is the clear winner.Would you be comfortable buying a six year old sub?.If something did blow on the hsu.what would it likly be,and how much to fix it?
Might as well figure worst case scenario and go from there LOL
At $475 would I be a fool not to buy it,assuming its perfect

Jonny, I have a VTF3 that is nearly six, so far no problems. However, I do think you are pressing the upper end of the bathtub curve for a subwoofer that is six years old. If I remember right, I think a replacement amp is something like $250 to $300. The amp is far more likely to fail than the driver. I think Hsu would give you an upgraded mk4 amp. To be honest, $475 for a six year old VTF3 seems a bit steep. I would try to argue that price down a bit.

 

[shadyJ]

What differences are you talking about? From what I can tell the measurements were done in a very similar way. I trust Ricci as much as I true Illka and from what I've seen the methodologies are similar enough to be comparable. It should be noted SVS has made numerous changes to their products since the HTS measurements too.

We are obviously splitting hairs because HSU and SVS both offer great products worthy of any home theater, but I don't buy that Ricci did a poor job in his testing.

I do trust Ilkka's and Josh's measurements, but I think there are too many differences in the testing rigs and conditions for the results to be comparable to each other. Also note that Ilkkas tests have went through a conversion to get CEA2010 results, and even his methodologies changed somewhat between rounds of his own testing.

 

[mike c]

We have been through this, I don't regard those measurements as comparable. There are too many differences between the HTS and audioholics tests, and the HTS tests were done before CEA2010 was even thought of. The tests need to be redone in the same conditions with the same equipment and by the same person for a proper comparison. If the Outlaw EX has such a performance lead over the PB12 NSD, there is no doubt that the VTF3 will. This summer I ought to break out my VTF3s and Outlaw EXs to a parking lot or a field and put the matter to rest once and for all! Also I don't think Hsus are always better than SVS, and I don't think Hsu has any products that perform competitively against the Plus or Ultra subs. I just don't think the NSD or 1000 lines are a great value in terms of performance.

those ARE CEA 2010 numbers.
CEA-2010 Standard Compilation - Home Theater Forum and Systems - HomeTheaterShack.com

I do trust Ilkka's and Josh's measurements, but I think there are too many differences in the testing rigs and conditions for the results to be comparable to each other. Also note that Ilkkas tests have went through a conversion to get CEA2010 results, and even his methodologies changed somewhat between rounds of his own testing.

riiiiight. because YOU keep making statements that are based on "you thinks", maybes and guesswork when the cold hard info is right in front of you. YOU say the measured results are inaccurate without even presenting evidence to prove such.

it would be just like me saying something negative about you, without presenting evidence. when you present evidence that such a negative comment is wrong. i would say that evidence is not admissible.

like i said, please stop scattering misinformation.

 

[shadyJ]

I'm not saying any of their testing is inaccurate, and I think they are accurate for their specific circumstances, equipment, and methodologies. Since the circumstances, equipment, and methodologies are not identical, or in my opinion, similar enough, I just don't think they should be compared with each other. Also, I know you were using Ilkka's CEA numbers, but those are converted results for CEA, and the measurements used to obtain the numbers for conversion were not made with CEA in mind, as CEA wasn't established yet. You are saying I am relying on guesswork, but I am saying you are making a whole lot of assumptions for these two different sets of tests to be comparable. I think your argument relies more on speculation than my own.

 

[lsiberian]

I disagree that the numbers aren't comparable because they both use ground plane testing with nearly identical setups. I know that Ricci is a competent testers and would not include data in a comparison that wasn't comparable. I believe the numbers to be excellent for those shopping subwoofers.

I also believe that multiple subs even with some drop in performance are superior for many setups especially the smaller theater rooms because it allows the smoothing of in room response.

 

[mike c]

I'm not saying any of their testing is inaccurate, and I think they are accurate for their specific circumstances, equipment, and methodologies. Since the circumstances, equipment, and methodologies are not identical, or in my opinion, similar enough, I just don't think they should be compared with each other. Also, I know you were using Ilkka's CEA numbers, but those are converted results for CEA, and the measurements used to obtain the numbers for conversion were not made with CEA in mind, as CEA wasn't established yet. You are saying I am relying on guesswork, but I am saying you are making a whole lot of assumptions for these two different sets of tests to be comparable. I think your argument relies more on speculation than my own.

says the guy who has yet to provide a shred of proof of anything he said in this thread.

if you SAY the results are not comparable. prove it. burden of proof is on you.

otherwise, EVERYONE in the subwoofer world who compares these CEA numbers are wrong because YOU said so.

 

[shadyJ]

Everyone in the subwoofer world? We should ask Josh Ricci and Ilkka themselves how compatible their results are and ways discrepancies could arise. Better yet, if we could get Ricci to measure one of the same subs that Ilkka measured we would at least have a point of reference. If Josh was in my neck of the woods I would gladly loan him one of my VTF3s. Right how you are taking the compatibility of these different data sets on faith, but there really isn't any solid proof that they are. Having one or the other of these guys measure an identical model using their own measurement techniques would be evidence either of their compatibility or their incompatibility. I am not even saying their CEA number are absolutely wrong to compare, I am saying use some skepticism until you have evidence that they aren't wrong. After all, Sound and Vision's guy is supposedly testing with adherence to CEA2010 and look how far off his results are from Audioholic's own measurements for the very same sub model.

 

[lsiberian]

Everyone in the subwoofer world? We should ask Josh Ricci and Ilkka themselves how compatible their results are and ways discrepancies could arise. Better yet, if we could get Ricci to measure one of the same subs that Ilkka measured we would at least have a point of reference. If Josh was in my neck of the woods I would gladly loan him one of my VTF3s. Right how you are taking the compatibility of these different data sets on faith, but there really isn't any solid proof that they are. Having one or the other of these guys measure an identical model using their own measurement techniques would be evidence either of their compatibility or their incompatibility. I am not even saying their CEA number are absolutely wrong to compare, I am saying use some skepticism until you have evidence that they aren't wrong. After all, Sound and Vision's guy is supposedly testing with adherence to CEA2010 and look how far off his results are from Audioholic's own measurements for the very same sub model.

In truth none of the measurements are fully statistically accurate because they are only measures of one sub on one mic. You'd need at least several subs of each type on several mics to establish a solid sample size. So the variance could result from a variety of factors, but that's not cost effective. The measurements are certainly good enough to give us an idea, but they don't go so far as to establish a result worthy statistical scrutiny.

I suspect some IE exposure here. Still let's not get carried away with the arguments.

It's also the best comparison we have I realize some results may be at the top of the standard deviation and others at the bottom, but the likelihood for either is equal so you can still make an informed decision on the measurements.

 

[mike c]

again, both parties say they adhered to the CEA standards. therefore, both would say, that the results are comparable.

YOU, are ASSUMING that they would say otherwise. so YOU can ask either of them to confirm what you are saying.

 

[Ed Mullen]

Ilkka used the same exact Don Keele CEA-2010 software that both SVS and Josh Ricci currently use. The only 'conversion' he made was to normalize his results to 2 meters dB RMS, so it could be compared to AVTalk's data (which was popular at the time).

The CEA-2010 standard requires the SPL results to be normalized to 1 meter dB peak. Also, the software generates dB peak values. To convert from 1 meter dB peak to 2 meters dB RMS, subtract 9 dB. That's all Ilkka did, and Josh and SVS do the same thing.

From a test methodology, software, and accuracy standpoint, Illka's CEA-2010 data is still directly comparable to Josh's or SVS's. With that said, some of the SVS and Hsu models he tested have been revised with different amps and woofers, so in that sense the data sets could be considered outdated in some cases.

The PB-1000 CEA-2010 data is about 3 dB lower than the PB12-NSD data in the 18-36 Hz octave. In the 40-80 Hz octave, the gap closes as the PB-1000 uses a light moving mass woofer which has high sensitivity and makes remarkably good use of 300W. Dual colocated PB-1000 will add 6 dB over a single PB-1000.

So compared to a PB12-NSD, dual PB-1000 will have on average 3 dB more max output in ther 18-36 Hz octave, and closer to 5 dB more max output in the 40-80 Hz octave. If anyone wants the CEA-2010 values for dual colocated PB-1000, take Josh's data set for the PB12-NSD and add ~3 dB from 18-36 Hz octave and ~5 dB in the 40-80 Hz octave.