Whatta Ya Think About Hsu Research Subwoofers?

I have a HSU VTF15 in my HT. Love it. 

big_greg: " If "prodigious amounts of bass is your thing", what difference does it make how you get it, whether it’s speakers or complementing speakers with a subwoofer (or multiple subs)? Even if you just want a "realistic" amount of bass, again, why does it matter how you achieve that? A purpose driven device (the subwoofer) just might be better than one that’s trying to be a jack of all trades (the speaker)."

Hello big_greg,

     The main reason I utilize a 4-sub DBA system in my room is not to have prodigious amounts of bass but to attain the highest quality bass that is sufficiently smooth, fast and detailed to blend in seamlessly with my smooth, fast and detailed Magnepan 3.7i main speakers.
     My pair of 3.7i are 6’x2’x2" dipole 3-way panel speakers produce very high quality smooth, fast and detailed almost full range frequency performance all by themselves in my 23’x16’x8’ room. However, they only have a rated bass extension down to 35 Hz which most people, including myself, would accurately describe as deep bass limited.
     I believe the bass the 3.7is do produce is sufficiently smooth, fast, detailed and, of course, seamlessly integrated with the midrange and treble planar-magnetic drivers that many would not discern a need for external dynamic subs that are notoriously difficult to integrate with planar-magnetic and electrostatic main speakers.
     But I added the Audio Kinesis Debra 4-sub distributed bass array (DBA) system, which is almost identical to the AK Swarm DBA system reviewed on the link attached below, to extend the bass range of the 3.7is down to the audible limit of 20 Hz and improve the deep bass impact, dynamics and realism of music in my room. The AK Debra 4-sub DBA system very successfully achieved this for me while also integrating seamlessly with my main speakers.

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/audiokinesis-swarm-subwoofer-system/

     You asked: " Even if you just want a "realistic" amount of bass, again, why does it matter how you achieve that? A purpose driven device (the subwoofer) just might be better than one that’s trying to be a jack of all trades (the speaker)."

     You answered your own question. Typical tower or panel speakers are trying to be jack of all trades. Subs and sub systems, however, are purpose built devices that have the dual benefits of being capable of reproducing bass down to its audible limit of 20 Hz and, more importantly, being capable of being independently positioned in the room to avoid the pitfalls of bass peaks, dips and nulls at the designated listening position in your room.
     Tower and panel speakers are typically positioned in a room and in relation to the designated listening seat to achieve the optimum midrange and treble performance along with maxinizing the imaging and the 3D sound stage illusion effect made possible by 2 channel stereo recordings and the playback through 2 precisely placed stereo speakers.
     This main speakers positioning is very important and enjoyable when done properly but the biggest loser in this normal process is bass performance at the listening seat. The precise positioning of the bass drivers (woofers) in the room and in relation to the listening seat is also very important for good bass performance. But they’ve been totally ignored during the normal process of optimizing the position of the main speakers for midrange, treble and imaging performance at the listening seat.
     Proper positioning of the woofers in the room and in relation to the listening seat has been totally neglected and their positions are usually relegated to positions directly below, and physically attached to in the same cabinet, the midrange and treble drivers. It is highly unlikely that the optimum position of the bass drivers in a room and in relation to the listening seat will be directly below the optimum position of the midrange and treble drivers in a room and in relation to the listening seat.
     What could possibly be the solution to this dilemma since the drivers are all permanently attached to each other in the same cabinet or panel and lack the capacity to be independently positioned for optimum performance?
You guessed it, the most basic solution is adding a single good quality sub that can be independently positioned in the room to supplement the bass already arriving at the listening seat from the main speakers and thereby optimize bass performance at the listening seat.
     Progressive improvements in bass performance quality at the listening seat will be achieved by adding good quality, properly positioned subs to the room. The very obvious and progressive bass quality improvements resulting from adding more properly positioned subs to a room are increases in bass smoothness, speed, detail, impact, dynamics, sense of ease, sound stage openness, size and naturalness along with a seamless quality to the integration to the main speakers.
     There are more details I’d like to describe about why it matters where bass performance quantity and quality improvements come from along with the benefits of multiple subs but I’ll stop here for the sake of brevity.

Tim

Tim, they were rhetorical questions.  As I mentioned, I use 4 subs in my main system.  My point was that there are a few people that make pronouncements that may be "true" for them, but they may not be truisms for everyone - "you have to have four subs", "subs are for home theater", etc.  What's "best" for one system, one's listening tastes, and their room may not be for someone else.

For smaller subs , that have great tight bass , have you considered JL Audio ?

big_greg:" Tim, they were rhetorical questions. As I mentioned, I use 4 subs in my main system. My point was that there are a few people that make pronouncements that may be "true" for them, but they may not be truisms for everyone - "you have to have four subs", "subs are for home theater", etc. What's "best" for one system, one's listening tastes, and their room may not be for someone else."

Hello big_greg,

     Okay, but I just reread your prior post and you sure did a poor job of making it clear your questions were rhetorical and what your point was. Odd, because you were able to clearly make your point in one sentence,  "  My point was that there are a few people that make pronouncements that may be "true" for them, but they may not be truisms for everyone", in your last post quoted above but failed to clearly do so in your entire prior post.
     Good, that clears up the issue of your point from your prior post that wasn't initially clear to me and I agree with your recently understood point.  Thank you.  
     But I'm hoping you could clear up another section of your prior post that I didn't fully understand or had questions about.  You stated:
" The best subwoofer integration I’ve heard to date was done with two subs. Compared to that system, I feel like my 4 subwoofer system is more of a band-aid than a best of class solution. Not that mine sounds bad, it’s very good, but there’s always more than one way to skin a cat."

     I have 2 questions/comments:

1.  Can you elaborate on the this best subwoofer integration you've heard to date that only consisted of 2 subs?  It's not that I don't believe you, it's more a matter of curiosity.

2,  I generally agree with you that there's always more than one way to skin a cat.  Apparently just like you. I'm also very interested and familiar with the various methods available for this hobby.  For example, I typically utilize very different methods depending on whether the cat is dead or alive.  Is this what you were referring to? Can you elaborate? 

Thanks,
  Tim