Next Level?

[speakerman39]

I really don't understand those type subwoofer listening comparisons, what are you listening for? Subs do only one thing, they produce low frequencies, logic say's they will be pretty much sound the same within the limited frequency range that subwoofers operate within.

As I mentioned previously, the S1500 was located EXACTLY where I had the ULS-15 MK2 sub. Then, I level matched with my rad shack spl meter to 70 db. Did the same thing with my ULS-15 MK2. Then, I ran Audyssey Multi-EQ Xt. Still yet, I went back into the settings and set everything to small with a crossover of 80 Hz. Once again, went and level matched the S1500 again via my spl meter.

Have the S1500 set to "small" room with the dial turned all of the way. Played some various materials that I know very well. Thus, I can tell YOU first hand that the S1500 AND the ULS-15 MK2 do sound different. The S1500 is quicker, tighter, punchier, and more articulate. It does appear that the ULS-15 MK2 digs a little deeper.

There is nothing scientific about my comparison here, but I did for the most part put BOTH subs on an equal playing field. Of the two, I much prefer the S1500 because to me it is more musical. Don't take me wrong here, the ULS-15 MK2 is no slouch in that regard. The S1500 just does it better. That is why I now have my ULS-15 Mk2 sub up for sale.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[Auditor55]

At that point logic isn't taking account all the different factors that go into sound reproduction. Small room acoustics aside, the subs can/will differ in extension, linearity, distortion, impulse response, and if you're like me max SPL, FR response, compression, distortion, and impulse response at reference level+ SPL's.

Then small room acoustics come into play, getting positioning right, making sure you're not sitting in a null or a peak, and all the other things in room that will contribute to the sound of the sub at those frequencies.

A more practical example might be between two of my sealed subs. One with an 18" LMS Ultra and one with an 18" Mach 5 UXL. At reasonable SPL's they both measure very similarly in terms of all of the above metrics and yet have two very distinct sounds to them when playing the same Audyssey level match tone or REW generated pink noise. This is why it is so important to have a listen to different gear whenever possible. Learn what you like, see how what you like measures, and then you can use those measurements to other stuff that you might like.

What do you mean they have distinct sounds to them? You mind briefly describing the distinction you hear between your two subs? Considering the fact that a subwoofer is designed to handle LF in the 20 HZ-150 HZ range. I have a hard time believing that low frequencies themselves have a distinct sound. Dr. Earl Geddes say's that the room has greater affect on bass (LF) in a small room than does the subwoofer. For example, as you well know, room mode such as peak will typically make your bass sound boomy. Many enthusiast will attribute that fault to the subwoofer and will be disappointed in its performance, which may cause them exchange or purchase a new sub, however ignoring the factor the room plays, which is the greatest factor.

Taking into account the all the factors you mentioned above, which are measurable, it is not necessary to a do subjective listening test. We should be able know, if we have the data available on a particular sub or subwoofers how they are capable of performing. For example, if you want sub that's capable of a lot of output down low there are objective measurements that will help guide you on which sub to purchase.

If we put this discussion in context, the above poster who purchased ULS-15 and then purchased a PSA S1500, after listening to both he said he knew he preferred the PSA. Nothing wrong with that at all. Even though he did not explain what he preferred about PSA over the ULS, I suspect that it was difference in output capabilities between the two subs. I think, other factors being equal, two subs more than capable of delivering output between 20- 150 HZ, in an 1800 cubic feet room, the extra db's that the S1500 (which are incremental or nominal at best) can deliver over the ULS-15 seems unnecessary and may represent a point of diminishing returns. He could have saved $150.00

P.S. not trying to pick on you Speakerman39!!

 

[KEW]

I really don't understand those type subwoofer listening comparisons, what are you listening for? Subs do only one thing, they produce low frequencies, logic say's they will be pretty much sound the same within the limited frequency range that subwoofers operate within.

That has not been my experience in the least.
It is informative that Phil heard such a definitive difference between two 15" sealed subs set up roughly in the same way. However, if you recall at the onset of his system acquisition, he expressed that he had specific objectives for sub sound and listed several subs he had compared/owned in the past.

For myself (music only), I started with a SB12-Plus, discovered a pair of Velodyne VMS-8's were actually a step up, but knew I was missing a little on the low end with 8" subs. Next, I was thoroughly disgusted/disappointed with dual JL Audio E112's, then found my sound with dual Rythmik E15HP's! Then I found it again with dual PSA XS15se's.
For HT, the Rythmiks can dig a little deeper (I am now 95% music/5%HT), but for music, I find the PSA's equal the E15HP.
My perception is that the JL Audio has poor transient response with lots of overhang. If you check DataBass you will see that the PSA XS15se has a stellar impulse response, while the JL isn't that pretty (for a sealed sub).
http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=system&id=105&mset=117
http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=system&id=104&mset=116
However, I think it may be the reality that the FR is the culprit. The JL is EQ'ed aggressively to provide flat response down to the mid-20Hz range. The PSA is down about 3 dB as it goes from 50 to 30Hz and then "corners" into the natural 12dB/octave roll-off of a sealed sub.
As Josh Ricci comments on the XS15se,

"It should be a good match with the boost often seen in the low bass once placed in room."

I employed Audyssey with both units and the JL still maintained is basic character of (my perception) bloated, sloppy bass!

Whatever the cause, The JL is totally unacceptable to me for music (at casual listening levels, the SUB-1200 sounds better)!

Understand that the max SPL or max extension never enters the picture ... the dual XS15se's are plenty for me!

 

[shadyJ]

As I mentioned previously, the S1500 was located EXACTLY where I had the ULS-15 MK2 sub. Then, I level matched with my rad shack spl meter to 70 db. Did the same thing with my ULS-15 MK2. Then, I ran Audyssey Multi-EQ Xt. Still yet, I went back into the settings and set everything to small with a crossover of 80 Hz. Once again, went and level matched the S1500 again via my spl meter.

Have the S1500 set to "small" room with the dial turned all of the way. Played some various materials that I know very well. Thus, I can tell YOU first hand that the S1500 AND the ULS-15 MK2 do sound different. The S1500 is quicker, tighter, punchier, and more articulate. It does appear that the ULS-15 MK2 digs a little deeper.

There is nothing scientific about my comparison here, but I did for the most part put BOTH subs on an equal playing field. Of the two, I much prefer the S1500 because to me it is more musical. Don't take me wrong here, the ULS-15 MK2 is no slouch in that regard. The S1500 just does it better. That is why I now have my ULS-15 Mk2 sub up for sale.

Cheers,

Phil

You can't really compare subs unless you A/B them, which you did not do. You also can not use Audyssey to compare subs. Another thing, what EQ mode did you use the ULS in? If you used EQ1, that would shift its Fs much lower than the S1500. I would guess that the higher Fs and more distortion in the S1500 give it a spectral shift to higher frequencies that can be mistaken for 'articulation'. Having heard a S1500 myself, I was unimpressed. I would not trade a ULS-15 mk1 for one, although I haven't heard the mk2s.

 

[KEW]

You can't really compare subs unless you A/B them, which you did not do.

I did hear a VTF3 mk5 that was dialed in a room and a month later a PSA S1500 that hadn't been dialed in- guess what, the VTF3 sounded great and the S1500 sounded like nothing. I don't go on to make comparative statements between the two based on that experience though.

Having heard a S1500 myself, I was unimpressed. I would not trade a ULS-15 mk1 for one, although I haven't heard the mk2s.

^What's wrong with this picture?^

...and that is before asking the obvious question of whether you could listen to any PSA sub without bias.

 

[speakerman39]

What do you mean they have distinct sounds to them? You mind briefly describing the distinction you hear between your two subs? Considering the fact that a subwoofer is designed to handle LF in the 20 HZ-150 HZ range. I have a hard time believing that low frequencies themselves have a distinct sound. Dr. Earl Geddes say's that the room has greater affect on bass (LF) in a small room than does the subwoofer. For example, as you well know, room mode such as peak will typically make your bass sound boomy. Many enthusiast will attribute that fault to the subwoofer and will be disappointed in its performance, which may cause them exchange or purchase a new sub, however ignoring the factor the room plays, which is the greatest factor.

Taking into account the all the factors you mentioned above, which are measurable, it is not necessary to a do subjective listening test. We should be able know, if we have the data available on a particular sub or subwoofers how they are capable of performing. For example, if you want sub that's capable of a lot of output down low there are objective measurements that will help guide you on which sub to purchase.

If we put this discussion in context, the above poster who purchased ULS-15 and then purchased a PSA S1500, after listening to both he said he knew he preferred the PSA. Nothing wrong with that at all. Even though he did not explain what he preferred about PSA over the ULS, I suspect that it was difference in output capabilities between the two subs. I think, other factors being equal, two subs more than capable of delivering output between 20- 150 HZ, in an 1800 cubic feet room, the extra db's that the S1500 (which are incremental or nominal at best) can deliver over the ULS-15 seems unnecessary and may represent a point of diminishing returns. He could have saved $150.00

P.S. not trying to pick on you Speakerman39!!

Like I said previously, there was nothing scientific about my conclusions. At least, not YET. More to come on that one. But, I am here to tell you that the S1500 gives me more of what I want in a sub musically speaking. That is to say, the S1500 is faster, tighter, punchier, and most importantly more articulate. There is MORE separation in the attack albeit kick drums for example. Better dampening and over all better control. This may be due, at least to some extent, the linearity of the 15" driver.

Yes, my room is very small at only 1,440 ft. ^3. As such, there has to be quite a bit of room gain resulting in some peaks that will need to be tamed. I chose to go the anti-mode route for the time being. Later, my plan includes getting a CSL Umik 1 and incorporate REW. If needed, I will then order a miniDSP 2X4.

Shady is right that I need to measure my in-room response as soon as possible. In time, that will come. Until then, the anti-mode will be very useful for me taming any peaks due to room gain/standing waves. Just have a lot going on right now with my set-up. However, I will update this thread as often as I can when the results need to be shared. After all, this is a learning process for many of us. That is what makes this hobby so rewarding.

Lastly, my B-stock PSA S1500 cost less than the ULS-15MK2 because I also purchased the anti-mode 8033 S II. To be quite candid here, I am very happy that I did. As soon as I can, I will own a second PSA S1500. Yeah, it is that good!

Cheers,

Phil

 

[billy p]

Indeed ShadyJ had the unfortunate pleasure of listening to some PSA stuff Tom sent off to a DIY GTG...IIRC. Considering their history, I doubt he could form an opinion without prejudice on any PSA products and leave it at that...JMO.

 

[Auditor55]

That has not been my experience in the least.
It is informative that Phil heard such a definitive difference between two 15" sealed subs set up roughly in the same way. However, if you recall at the onset of his system acquisition, he expressed that he had specific objectives for sub sound and listed several subs he had compared/owned in the past.

For myself (music only), I started with a SB12-Plus, discovered a pair of Velodyne VMS-8's were actually a step up, but knew I was missing a little on the low end with 8" subs. Next, I was thoroughly disgusted/disappointed with dual JL Audio E112's, then found my sound with dual Rythmik E15HP's! Then I found it again with dual PSA XS15se's.
For HT, the Rythmiks can dig a little deeper (I am now 95% music/5%HT), but for music, I find the PSA's equal the E15HP.
My perception is that the JL Audio has poor transient response with lots of overhang. If you check DataBass you will see that the PSA XS15se has a stellar impulse response, while the JL isn't that pretty (for a sealed sub).
http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=system&id=105&mset=117
http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=system&id=104&mset=116
However, I think it may be the reality that the FR is the culprit. The JL is EQ'ed aggressively to provide flat response down to the mid-20Hz range. The PSA is down about 3 dB as it goes from 50 to 30Hz and then "corners" into the natural 12dB/octave roll-off of a sealed sub.
As Josh Ricci comments on the XS15se,


I employed Audyssey with both units and the JL still maintained is basic character of (my perception) bloated, sloppy bass!

Whatever the cause, The JL is totally unacceptable to me for music (at casual listening levels, the SUB-1200 sounds better)!

Understand that the max SPL or max extension never enters the picture ... the dual XS15se's are plenty for me!

I searched the internet, I read multiple reviews, searching for others that may have the same experience that you had with the E112 and I couldn't find any. Even Gene DeSalla had overwhelmingly positive comments about the E112.

go to the 6:50 mark. He makes no mention of boomy or sloppy performance from E112. How can both of you have opposing perspectives on this particular sub, unless Gene Desalla is some kind of shill for JL Audio.

Having said that, I have to believe that your E112 was either defective or you did not have it properly set up in the room you placed it in. Just a thought!!

 

[speakerman39]

You can't really compare subs unless you A/B them, which you did not do. You also can not use Audyssey to compare subs. Another thing, what EQ mode did you use the ULS in? If you used EQ1, that would shift its Fs much lower than the S1500. I would guess that the higher Fs and more distortion in the S1500 give it a spectral shift to higher frequencies that can be mistaken for 'articulation'. Having heard a S1500 myself, I was unimpressed. I would not trade a ULS-15 mk1 for one, although I haven't heard the mk2s.

That is correct Shady. I did NOT do an A/B test. Not really sure which EQ I used on both subs. Just ran Audyssey both times completely through including all (8) measurements. How do I go about finding out what EQ I used? Sorry, I am a bit confused here.

Audyssey sets my RTi6's and CSi5 as large for some reason. So, I go back in and set everything to small with an 80 Hz crossover setting. Audyssey does a great job with levels and distance. However, I do bump the sub levels a bit. Before running Audyssey, I did a 70 db level match with my Radio Shack Analog SPL meter.

Dr. Hsu recommends a low Q of .3 as giving me the tightest bass. That is exactly where it is set. The S1500 uses a room size as a Q setting. I have the dial turned all the way to the small setting. So, have done my best to keep this comparison on a somewhat equal playing field. As such, I preferred the S1500. That is in my opinion-nothing more nothing less.

I am NOT trying to bash Hsu in any way whatsoever. Have owned a VTF3.3 in the past and loved it. Until I owned both the ULS-15 MK2 and the S1500, the 3.3 was the best sub I ever owned period. Am fully aware of Dr. Hsu and his capabilities. But, I can also say quite easily that the S1500 is the absolute best sub I have ever owned. But, the ULS-15 Mk2 is no slouch. In the end, I much prefer the S1500. That is the direction that I am going in.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[shadyJ]

The ULS-15 mk2 has two EQ modes, there is a switch on the back labeled 'operating mode'. EQ1 forces a flat response and will boost the deep bass. EQ2 looks to be the sub's natural response. I would use EQ2. Subs with disproportionate mid bass or upper bass are always thought to be more articulate for the fact that human hearing is far more discerning at those frequencies than at deep frequencies. If you want people to think your sub is 'fast', just boost 80 or 90 Hz. Deep bass will make a sub sound slow to those who don't know what to listen for, even if it is perfectly linear. Some pro-audio companies used to deliberately have bass bins with lots of second harmonic distortion to accentuate kick drums. Cleaner bass will always sound quieter for the same SPL.

 

[speakerman39]

The ULS-15 mk2 has two EQ modes, there is a switch on the back labeled 'operating mode'. EQ1 forces a flat response and will boost the deep bass. EQ2 looks to be the sub's natural response. I would use EQ2. Subs with disproportionate mid bass or upper bass are always thought to be more articulate for the fact that human hearing is far more discerning at those frequencies than at deep frequencies. If you want people to think your sub is 'fast', just boost 80 or 90 Hz. Deep bass will make a sub sound slow to those who don't know what to listen for, even if it is perfectly linear. Some pro-audio companies used to deliberately have bass bins with lots of second harmonic distortion to accentuate kick drums. Cleaner bass will always sound quieter for the same SPL.

I just checked and I had it set to EQ1. Have NOT really messed with the EQ setting much. It seemed, at least to me, to sound better using the EQ1 setting. When fully integrated, I will experiment more with that to see which I prefer more. I will, however, keep using a Q of .3 no matter what. Keeping it as tight as I can get it. Appreciate the tips Shady.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[KEW]

I agree on the EQ2 setting.

For music, I would definitely set your sub to EQ2:

The reason is EQ1 is tuned to give you a flat response in an anechoic chamber:

The reason is, unless you have a "non-residentially huge" room, you will get substantial room gain. In your not so large room it is a safe bet you will have well over 10dB of room gain by the time you are at 20Hz. Understand that is the avg. across your room, if you happen to be in a node where your LP is, it gets worse! Audyssey is not capable of suppressing such a huge bloom in bass (I have seen numbers like 8 to 10dB thrown around as max adjustment capability for Audyssey - but have never seen anything "official" on this).

It is a safe bet that the EQ2 curve, after room gain, provides a much flatter "net" frequency response!
You should go ahead and try this if you are currently using the EQ1 curve.
We get trapped into the rut of thinking we want a flat FR curve - well, we do, but that curve needs to be for in our room. For non-bass speakers, anechoic is a fair measure, but for bass, anechoic flat response is not going to be flat when you get it in your home.

 

[KEW]

I searched the internet, I read multiple reviews, searching for others that may have the same experience that you had with the E112 and I couldn't find any. Even Gene DeSalla had overwhelmingly positive comments about the E112.

go to the 6:50 mark. He makes no mention of boomy or sloppy performance from E112. How can both of you have opposing perspectives on this particular sub, unless Gene Desalla is some kind of shill for JL Audio.

Having said that, I have to believe that your E112 was either defective or you did not have it properly set up in the room you placed it in. Just a thought!!

Regarding setup, all I can say is the Rythmiks and PSAs sound wonderful in the exact same location as the JL's did not!
All of the positive reviews and the motor/driver structure is why I bought them and why I was so disappointed/disgusted with them. Gene uses his primarily for HT and Gaming. He uses a Yamaha RX-Z7. I am not sure if he uses any type of room correction EQ with them.
It is disappointing that despite the cost and capability of this sub, it is very limited on configuration options.

Is there a reason you are ruling out my comments on room gain and anechoically flat EQ? That is why I was very careful to differentiate between "my perception" and what "may be the reality". I believe room gain is what queers the deal on the E112's for me.

My perception is that the JL Audio has poor transient response with lots of overhang. If you check DataBass you will see that the PSA XS15se has a stellar impulse response, while the JL isn't that pretty (for a sealed sub).
http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=system&id=105&mset=117
http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=system&id=104&mset=116
However, I think it may be the reality that the FR is the culprit. The JL is EQ'ed aggressively to provide flat response down to the mid-20Hz range. The PSA is down about 3 dB as it goes from 50 to 30Hz and then "corners" into the natural 12dB/octave roll-off of a sealed sub.
As Josh Ricci comments on the XS15se,
"It should be a good match with the boost often seen in the low bass once placed in room."
I employed Audyssey with both units and the JL still maintained is basic character of (my perception) bloated, sloppy bass!

 

[speakerman39]

I agree on the EQ2 setting.

Yeah, I will try that once they both are up and running. Tried it before, but really did not compare EQ1 to EQ2 much. The Hus manual mentioned that EQ1 gives the flattest response so I just left it set on EQ1. Will figure out which way that I prefer.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[Auditor55]

Regarding setup, all I can say is the Rythmiks and PSAs sound wonderful in the exact same location as the JL's did not!
All of the positive reviews and the motor/driver structure is why I bought them and why I was so disappointed/disgusted with them. Gene uses his primarily for HT and Gaming. He uses a Yamaha RX-Z7. I am not sure if he uses any type of room correction EQ with them.
It is disappointing that despite the cost and capability of this sub, it is very limited on configuration options.

Is there a reason you are ruling out my comments on room gain and anechoically flat EQ? That is why I was very careful to differentiate between "my perception" and what "may be the reality". I believe room gain is what queers the deal on the E112's for me.

No sir, not ruling out your comments about room gain, just trying to figure out why that would be so. One of the ways to investigate would be to check with others that own the same subwoofer to see if they had the same experience.

 

[speakerman39]

Folks, I now have both the Hsu ULS-15 MK2 AND the PSA S1500 hooked up. They are NOT fully dialed in just yet. But, I am making progress. I also have the ULS-15 MK2 set to EQ2 as suggested by Shady and KEW. So far, it sounds really good. To be honest, it is a bit scary......LOL!!!! More to come.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[Auditor55]

Folks, I now have both the Hsu ULS-15 MK2 AND the PSA S1500 hooked up. They are NOT fully dialed in just yet. But, I am making progress. I also have the ULS-15 MK2 set to EQ2 as suggested by Shady and KEW. So far, it sounds really good. To be honest, it is a bit scary......LOL!!!! More to come.

Cheers,

Phil

Are you going to keep both?

 

[speakerman39]

Are you going to keep both?

Really don't plan to. But, that all depends on if anyone wants to buy the ULS-15 MK2. Either way, I will have another PSA S1500. Just may end up with (3) 15" subs and that is fine by me. I am more than willing to take a hit on the ULS-15 MK2 sub, but I am simply NOT giving it away.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[Auditor55]

Really don't plan to. But, that all depends on if anyone wants to buy the ULS-15 MK2. Either way, I will have another PSA S1500. Just may end up with (3) 15" subs and that is fine by me. I am more than willing to take a hit on the ULS-15 MK2 sub, but I am simply NOT giving it away.

Cheers,

Phil

You shouldn't have to give it away, its a quality sub. If you sell on Ebay or Audiogon, you be able to get close to what you paid for it. Craigslist is different, people look for extreme bargains on Craigslist.

 

[TLS Guy]

I really don't understand those type subwoofer listening comparisons, what are you listening for? Subs do only one thing, they produce low frequencies, logic say's they will be pretty much sound the same within the limited frequency range that subwoofers operate within.

You forgot about Q didn't you? Frequency response of a sub will tell you the steady state frequency response and nothing else.

If you have tow subs with the same frequency response and one has a Q od 1.0 it will sound awful and boomy. If the other as a Q of 0.5 it will sound fine, and not boom, but be nice and tight.