Hsu VTF-2 vs Monoprice Monolith 10

B

Bkp09

Audiophyte
I’m planning to setup a home theater in 3500 (23x17x9 ft) basement fully closed room. Thinking of getting 2 subs to setup 5.2.4 system with RX-A2070. Mostly this will be used to watch movies like 90% time. Budget for 2 subs is around $1K. So, far have liked 3. Hsu vtf 2 12”, monolith 10” and rsl 10” in order of liking. However at the same time pair of rsl’s is roughly 280 bucks less than pair of vtf-2’s. For pair of subs in this size of room, will there be so much difference in normal movie watching experience?

To get a good or very good movie experience which subs would you suggest I go with?
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
I’m planning to setup a home theater in 3500 (23x17x9 ft) basement fully closed room. Thinking of getting 2 subs to setup 5.2.4 system with RX-A2070. Mostly this will be used to watch movies like 90% time. Budget for 2 subs is around $1K. So, far have liked 3. Hsu vtf 2 12”, monolith 10” and rsl 10” in order of liking. However at the same time pair of rsl’s is roughly 280 bucks less than pair of vtf-2’s. For pair of subs in this size of room, will there be so much difference in normal movie watching experience?

To get a good or very good movie experience which subs would you suggest I go with?
The mono 10" and VTF2 are both great subs. The VTF2 is more powerful overall though. The mono 10" is nice though, crazy high build quality and good overall performance. The RSL 10" will probably be more powerful than the mono 10" in midbass but not as powerful in deep bass, but it won't have any advantage over the VTF2 in terms of performance. I would say if you intend to watch at high levels, get the VTF2s, but if you aren't going to be blasting this system, get the mono 10".
 
BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Slumlord
Alternatively get a single VTF3-mk5 HP.
Compared to VTF2 it would more and lower bass than a pair of VTF-2
 
B

Bkp09

Audiophyte
The mono 10" and VTF2 are both great subs. The VTF2 is more powerful overall though. The mono 10" is nice though, crazy high build quality and good overall performance. The RSL 10" will probably be more powerful than the mono 10" in midbass but not as powerful in deep bass, but it won't have any advantage over the VTF2 in terms of performance. I would say if you intend to watch at high levels, get the VTF2s, but if you aren't going to be blasting this system, get the mono 10".
Thanks. When you say midbass I’m assuming you are talking about >500hz?
 
B

Bkp09

Audiophyte
Alternatively get a single VTF3-mk5 HP.
Compared to VTF2 it would more and lower bass than a pair of VTF-2
Really? Not an audiophile (yet). But the impression I got by reading around is that having 2 subs are better than having 1 bigger Sub. It provide some kind of frequency sync or normalization?
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
Thanks. When you say midbass I’m assuming you are talking about >500hz?
by mid bass I mean like 50 Hz and above.
Really? Not an audiophile (yet). But the impression I got by reading around is that having 2 subs are better than having 1 bigger Sub. It provide some kind of frequency sync or normalization?
Two subs can grant you a flatter frequency response, i.e., a more accurate sound- but only if you can place the subs in locations where the responses where they compliment each other's responses.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
Really? Not an audiophile (yet). But the impression I got by reading around is that having 2 subs are better than having 1 bigger Sub. It provide some kind of frequency sync or normalization?
Assuming you can put them where ever they will be beneficial, an important decision point is how important it is to have smooth bass across multiple locations in the room. If you will primarily be the only listener or you and your wife sitting close together, then a single sub can be located to support that listening position. If, on the other hand, you plan to invite friends and family over for "movie night" or the game on a regular basis, your would be better served with two subs.
The single more expensive sub will get you better performance in your one location, but the duals will do more to eliminate the "bad seats" in the room.
 
Last edited:
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
Assumin g you can put them where ever they will be beneficial, an important decision point is how important it is to have smooth bass across multiple locations in the room. If you will primarily be the only listener or you and your wife sitting close together, then a single sub can be located to support that listening position. If, on the other hand, you plan to invite friends and family over for "movie night" or the game on a regular basis, your would be better served with two subs.
The single more expensive sub will get you better performance in your one location, but the duals will do more to eliminate the "bad seats" in the room.
I don't quite agree. Two properly placed subs can get you significantly more accurate bass across all listening positions, and especially a single position if you 'tune' them to that point with placement an EQ. A single powerful sub might grant you more SPL and deeper bass, but it won't get a smoother response, and a smooth response is paramount in sound quality, especially in bass.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
I don't quite agree. Two properly placed subs can get you significantly more accurate bass across all listening positions, and especially a single position if you 'tune' them to that point with placement an EQ. A single powerful sub might grant you more SPL and deeper bass, but it won't get a smoother response, and a smooth response is paramount in sound quality, especially in bass.
Thanks! I did not realize that a single sub was not able to be tuned as well as a pair for a single location.
So, you just removed my only argument for going with a single more expensive sub!
Is it your opinion, that for any typical situation, two subs is almost always better?
I know @Steve81 was (at one point, not sure what he ended up with) planning to use a single 21" Funk sub in his basement which he explained as an essentially solitary listening room. However, my fuzzy memory seems to think he may have kept his 18" Funk in the mix after all!?
 
Last edited:
BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Slumlord
I don't quite agree. Two properly placed subs can get you significantly more accurate bass across all listening positions, and especially a single position if you 'tune' them to that point with placement an EQ. A single powerful sub might grant you more SPL and deeper bass, but it won't get a smoother response, and a smooth response is paramount in sound quality, especially in bass.
There basically two approaches to this:
1) By Harman's own scientists, who worked closely with Dr. Floyd Toole
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/00da/51387c572cfd27c0256cb15e44e976a1a72e.pdf

2) Earl Geddes approach: http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/multiple subs.pdf
 
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
I know @Steve81 was (at one point, not sure what he ended up with) planning to use a single 21" Funk sub in his basement which he explained as an essentially solitary listening room. However, my fuzzy memory seems to think he may have kept his 18" Funk in the mix after all!?
Yes, I kept the 18.0 as well. In my case running the 18.0 by itself, I had some luck on my side I found a spot where the basic response at the MLP was free of any major aberrations, so I was able to tune things reasonably well with EQ. Not everyone is going to have my luck though, especially if they just pop a sub down where it is convenient vs trying different locations and measuring the results.
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
Thanks! I did not realize that a single sub was not able to be tuned as well as a pair for a single location.
So, you just removed my only argument for going with a single more expensive sub!
Is it your opinion, that for any typical situation, two subs is almost always better?
I know @Steve81 was (at one point, not sure what he ended up with) planning to use a single 21" Funk sub in his basement which he explained as an essentially solitary listening room. However, my fuzzy memory seems to think he may have kept his 18" Funk in the mix after all!?
Two subs is almost always better- the only exception is if those two subs were badly designed or had some kind of severe shortcoming. Again though, placement matters. Two subs could actually make things worse if poorly placed and badly calibrated. Sometimes one sub can get a reasonably good response, but it will never get you a totally flat response. I do have one spot in my room that isn't totally awful for a single sub, but it still has like a 7 dB window from 20 Hz to 80 Hz; not great, but not bad for a single sub. If I turn all my subs on, I can get a much tighter window and with no EQing.
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
There basically two approaches to this:
1) By Harman's own scientists, who worked closely with Dr. Floyd Toole
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/00da/51387c572cfd27c0256cb15e44e976a1a72e.pdf

2) Earl Geddes approach: http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/multiple subs.pdf
I would just say go with whatever works. Measure the subs in different positions and select the positions that can overall gain the flattest response, or at least choose positions where the subs are shoring up each others' nulls. I don't think room acoustics is so predictable that these rules of thumb will always work. I wouldn't assume anything about the room. Experimenting and measurement will always yield a better response than adhering to some formula.
 
B

Bkp09

Audiophyte
Thanks guys. This was really useful. Most likely I’m going go with 2 monolith 10 unless I find cheaper deal on 2 vtf-2.
 
S

snakeeyes

Audioholic Ninja
I think a lot of people set the budget for dual subs too tight though. Instead of doing that, many choose to buy one decent sub now and add a 2nd one later if they still desire it. I don’t think many want or plan to end up with 4 speedwoofers... :)
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top