hsu vs svs: which has tighter bass?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by FredV, Dec 27, 2002.

  1. FredV

    FredV Agent

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    I want to get a sub; my main priority is clean, tight bass. I am not so concerned with LFE or volume; i figure any decent sub will be enought for my room. what i don't want is for the bass to be muddy.
    can you enlighten me on which may be better for me, and why?. i am primarily considering the hsu vtf-3 vs the cs-ultra ( with my own amp). thanks
     
  2. FredV

    FredV Agent

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anyone? Before I plunk down some serious cash, I'd like to know that i'm getting a sub with fast transient response and a tight sound. I'm really leery of getting muddy bass! I like the bass you get from a transmission line design, but can't afford the real thing.
     
  3. Dustin B

    Dustin B Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2001
    Messages:
    3,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    The room will have a greater affect on this than the differences in sound quality between the two. The Ultra will definately be able to play louder and lower though. Have you considered the Hsu TN series sence you already have an amp?

    If you are after the ultimate in bass quality have you considered a DIY infinite baffle or dipole sub? You could do quite well with a $1000 driver and material limit and already having the amp.

    The IB requires an appropriate adjacent space. The dipole doesn't but will be fairly large. Talk to Jack Gilvey about the dipole. He has heard many different sub designs and a dipole is his favorite with respect to sound quality. You could maybe put a pair of Tumults or 4-8 DPL12 drivers from Adire (the Dayton IB drivers from PE might work well too) in a dipole and have some decent output and exception sound quality.
     
  4. FredV

    FredV Agent

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many thanks for the reply
     
  5. RichardH

    RichardH Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    0
    If higher SPL's are not your concern, you may also consider sealed subs, which many have reported to have slightly tighter bass than ported subs, all else being equal. (of course, that never happens).
     
  6. FredV

    FredV Agent

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    While i am not an audio expert, it is regularly noted that a sealed box yields the tightest, most accurate bass. Since this is so, what is the most significant, real-world downside to using a sealed box?; inefficiency? If so, then is it just a matter of coming up with enough watts/current from your amp to overcome this?
     
  7. RichardH

    RichardH Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    0
    Inefficiency, and it starts to roll off at a higher frequency, albeit at a gentler rate. So, you would need more power (or more subs), and possibly EQ them to stay flat down to where you want. I think it would take a really, really large sealed enclosure for it to not need EQing and stay flat to 20Hz. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.

    That said, I don't think I've heard anyone complain that *any* of the SVS subs are not tight enough for music. I bet you'd be thrilled w/ a single Ultra properly placed (and possibly EQ'd to notch out some room nodes).
     
  8. Craig_Kg

    Craig_Kg Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    0
     

Share This Page