VTF-3 MK2 or VTF-2 MK3?

[akflyer]

I am trying to decide between these two. Any thoughts on if the extra power of the 3 MK2 is worth the $90.00 difference?

[davenlei]

I have the 3.2 and I went to the HSU showroom today with a coworker to demo the 2.3. Honestly, I could not tell the difference in sound quality between the 3.2 and 2.3.
Of course that extra 100 watts would probably make a difference at maximum output levels but how often do you listen to music and movies at ear splitting levels? I know I don't.
I think I would have still picked the 3.2 just because I have a pretty large room and my sub is placed far field from my seating position.

If your room is medium and/or you have the sub nearfield, I do not see a need for the extra 100 watts.

BTW, I also heard a demo of the 3.3 and felt that it was way too much for my needs. I never thought I would feel a sub had too much bass but in a nearfield position, it made the couch shake to a point of distraction.

[akflyer]

Thanks for the reply Dave! So for you, the extra $90.00 would be worth it if you were deciding again?

[davenlei]

For me it would be just because of the size of my room (12'w X 24'd X 15'h) and the room opens into the kitchen and upstairs landing as well so there is a lot of cu. ft. that needs to be energized.
I have the sub corner loaded about 12 ft. from my listening position and the scenes from Nemo and War of the Worlds energize the air in the room and mildly vibrate the couch and my pant legs. Just perfect to the point it is not distracting. And all that is achieved with turning the volume knob on the sub to only the 9 o'clock position.
Honestly, if the 2.3 was available at the time I bought the 3.2 I would have seriously been thinking about saving that extra few bucks but at the same time thinking that $90 more is not bad considering that is just the cost of a night out with the wife (movie/dinner w. drinks).
Again, it depends on your room, sub placement and listening levels. For me the 2.3 would have served me very well but then I would have always had the 'what if' question rolling around in my head.
If you are worried about sound quality, I could not hear ANY difference between the 2.3 and 3.2. I was told that the enclosure, ports, woofer and amp are the same as the 3.2 except the power of the amp is a little lower.
I can't remember where I read it but I read somewhere that the difference in output between the two subs is about 1-2 db or so. If that is true, you will not notice the difference 98% of the time IMO.

[Ddavidson]

For me the 2.3 would have served me very well but then I would have always had the 'what if' question rolling around in my head.
If you are worried about sound quality, I could not hear ANY difference between the 2.3 and 3.2. I was told that the enclosure, ports, woofer and amp are the same as the 3.2 except the power of the amp is a little lower.


SQ is the same with the 3.2 having more dynamic headroom because of its 100w rms (400w peak) larger amplifier. The only other issue is the current batch of 2.3's port positioning makes the use of the turbocharger a little more difficult compared to the 3.2

Ddavidson

[AudiblConoiseur]

the turbo was not designed for the 2.3 and is a couple of inches larger. it also has 4" ports and not 3" as the 2.3. you can make it work by turning it upside down and placing spacers of mdf b/t the turbo and the sub. bottom line, there isn't one for the 2.3 and i don't believe he is planning on making one for it. the 2.3 will do quite well for you w/o the turbo!

[akflyer]

I think I will be getting the 2 MK3. Thanks to all for the great info!