• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

HSU MFL-6 Home Theater Speaker Review

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 77 68.1%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 33 29.2%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 3 2.7%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    113

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
49,181
Likes
290,781
Location
Seattle Area
This is a review and detailed measurements of the HSU MFL-6 home theater / Dolby Atmos speaker review. It was kindly sent to me by a member and costs US $279.
HSU MFL-6 Dolby Atmos Home Theater speaker Review.jpg

HSU is one of the earliest companies focusing on home theater speakers. This sample has a slanted design that is stated to work well for all position in the way it directs the sound to the listener. You can see its shape better from the bottom where the port is located:
HSU MFL-6 Dolby Atmos Home Theater speaker wall mount port Review.jpg

I took the grill off for review. Further, I decided to measure the speaker rotated so that the measurement microphone is at 90 degrees to the baffle (front of the speaker). This seems to agree with company recommendation and design intent to have the listener hear the direct sound. Since Klippel NFS measures all axis, we can of course see other angles as well.

HSU MFL-6 Speaker Measurement
As usual, we start with our anechoic series of frequency measurements:
HSU MFL-6 Dolby Atmos Home Theater speaker predicted anechoic frequency response measurement.png

Gosh.... we have a clear issue with that elevated upper treble. I am puzzled by this result. I could see if the intended listening axis was not 0. But as is, you are going to get highly exaggerated high frequency response. Fortunately it doesn't travel too far down. Bass has a gradual extension down which is nice as with room gain it should flatten.

Near-field driver response shows woofer resonances are not well controlled:
HSU MFL-6 Dolby Atmos Home Theater speaker driver frequency response measurement.png

That causes the discontinuity we see around 2.5 kHz in anechoic response.

Naturally both early window and predicted in-room response show the same elevated upper treble:
HSU MFL-6 Dolby Atmos Home Theater speaker predicted early window reflection frequency respons...png

HSU MFL-6 Dolby Atmos Home Theater speaker predicted in-room frequency response measurement.png


Distortion was well controlled at 86 dBSPL but became a problem at 96 dBSPL:
HSU MFL-6 Dolby Atmos Home Theater speaker predicted distortion THD measurement.png

HSU MFL-6 Dolby Atmos Home Theater speaker predicted relative distortion THD measurement.png


Fortunately it still performed well at 91 dBSPL which is quite good for such a small speaker:
HSU MFL-6 Dolby Atmos Home Theater speaker predicted distortion THD 91 dBSPL measurement.png


Directivity angle is fairly high, causing narrowing of the response in all directions:
HSU MFL-6 Dolby Atmos Home Theater speaker horizontal beam width measurement.png

HSU MFL-6 Dolby Atmos Home Theater speaker horizontal directivity measurement.png


HSU MFL-6 Dolby Atmos Home Theater speaker vertical directivity measurement.png


Impedance and phase measurements show a number of resonances:
HSU MFL-6 Dolby Atmos Home Theater speaker impedance and phase measurement.png


Sorry, forgot to run the waterfall test.

I decided to skip listening tests as it is quite obvious what we are dealing with here.

Conclusions
Dr. Hsu's design have been revered among home theater enthusiasts that have been around for a while. Alas, the MFL-6 doesn't deliver on that front. As designed, what it points at you has highly elevated upper treble. This would have been very obvious in any measurement so I am unclear why it was produced this way. Maybe they thought the older buyer who know the company well have lost their higher frequency hearing. :)

FYI, I did look at the response at ±40 degrees and it flattens fair bit, leaving us with the disturbance around 2 to 3 kHz. So this speaker would have been better if it were a flat/square box.

I can't recommend the Hsu MFL-6 speaker. If you have it, be sure to let your auto-EQ correct all the way up to 20 kHz to curtain its extra treble energy.
------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
 

Attachments

Ouch... :\ This is especially painful, being a brand new speaker. Hopefully the treble can be EQ'd into tolerable condition, otherwise it definitely deserves a "poor" rating, IMO.

The good news? It's only/"only" $279 each. Could have been a worse purchase mistake. Probably not much R&D put into it, at this price, also.
 
For front speakers, these are too terrible with about 10dB rise between 12.5k - 13.5k.
Potentially, as suggested by @Putter above, this might be perfectly fine for a rear or surround position? I lack experience here.
 
Here is my take on the EQ.
Please report your findings, positive or negative!

For the score rational your journey starts here
Explanation for the sub score
The following EQs are “anechoic” EQs to get the speaker right before room integration.
If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 3.6
With Sub: 5.7

Spinorama with no EQ:
  • Large issue in directivity
  • very rough response
  • Poor cross over design
HSU MFL-6 No EQ Spinorama.png



Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height


HSU MFL-6 2D surface Directivity Contour Only Data.png


EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.
  • The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
  • The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
  • The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
Score EQ LW: 5.4
with sub: 7.5

Score EQ Score: 6.0
with sub: 8.0

Code:
HSU MFL-6 APO LW EQ 96000Hz
December082025-174016

Preamp: -3.00 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 55.3 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 1.35
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 157.5 Hz Gain -2.45 dB Q 1.44
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 507.7 Hz Gain -1.76 dB Q 2.21
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1537.5 Hz Gain -2.45 dB Q 1.99
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2191.5 Hz Gain -1.99 dB Q 4.97
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2827.6 Hz Gain 5.13 dB Q 0.63
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 4780.7 Hz Gain -7.40 dB Q 1.65
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 9335.5 Hz Gain -2.68 dB Q 2.16

HSU MFL-6 APO Score EQ 96000Hz
December082025-174016

Preamp: -3.10 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 55.6 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 1.39
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 158.4 Hz Gain -2.64 dB Q 1.24
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 526.0 Hz Gain -1.92 dB Q 2.66
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1366.7 Hz Gain -1.09 dB Q 3.31
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2312.8 Hz Gain -2.33 dB Q 4.78
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3081.3 Hz Gain 9.33 dB Q 1.54
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 3054.5 Hz Gain -5.35 dB Q 6.00
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 4526.9 Hz Gain -8.32 dB Q 1.23
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 9862.2 Hz Gain -2.92 dB Q 2.46
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 13503.4 Hz Gain -0.80 dB Q 6.00

HSU MFL-6 EQ Design.png

Spinorama EQ LW
HSU MFL-6 LW EQ Spinorama.png


Spinorama EQ Score
HSU MFL-6 Score EQ Spinorama.png


Zoom PIR-LW-ON
HSU MFL-6 Zoom.png


Regression - Tonal
HSU MFL-6 Regression.png


Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Large improvements?
HSU MFL-6 Radar.png
 

Attachments

  • HSU MFL-6 APO Score EQ 96000Hz.txt
    HSU MFL-6 APO Score EQ 96000Hz.txt
    569 bytes · Views: 26
  • HSU MFL-6 APO LW EQ 96000Hz.txt
    HSU MFL-6 APO LW EQ 96000Hz.txt
    464 bytes · Views: 28
  • HSU MFL-6 2D surface Directivity Contour Data.png
    HSU MFL-6 2D surface Directivity Contour Data.png
    413.4 KB · Views: 34
  • HSU MFL-6 3D surface Vertical Directivity Data.png
    HSU MFL-6 3D surface Vertical Directivity Data.png
    413.9 KB · Views: 38
  • HSU MFL-6 3D surface Horizontal Directivity Data.png
    HSU MFL-6 3D surface Horizontal Directivity Data.png
    440.1 KB · Views: 33
  • HSU MFL-6 Normalized Directivity data.png
    HSU MFL-6 Normalized Directivity data.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 34
  • HSU MFL-6 Raw Directivity data.png
    HSU MFL-6 Raw Directivity data.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 34
  • HSU MFL-6 Reflexion data.png
    HSU MFL-6 Reflexion data.png
    808 KB · Views: 31
  • HSU MFL-6 LW data.png
    HSU MFL-6 LW data.png
    722.8 KB · Views: 33
Last edited:
Here is my take on the EQ.
Please report your findings, positive or negative!

For the score rational your journey starts here
Explanation for the sub score
The following EQs are “anechoic” EQs to get the speaker right before room integration.
If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 3.6
With Sub: 5.7

Spinorama with no EQ:
  • Large issue in directivity
  • very rough response
  • Poor cross over design
View attachment 495899


Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height


View attachment 495908

EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.
  • The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
  • The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
  • The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
Score EQ LW: 5.4
with sub: 7.5

Score EQ Score:
with sub: 8.0

Code:
HSU MFL-6 APO LW EQ 96000Hz
December082025-174016

Preamp: -3.00 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 55.3 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 1.35
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 157.5 Hz Gain -2.45 dB Q 1.44
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 507.7 Hz Gain -1.76 dB Q 2.21
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1537.5 Hz Gain -2.45 dB Q 1.99
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2191.5 Hz Gain -1.99 dB Q 4.97
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2827.6 Hz Gain 5.13 dB Q 0.63
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 4780.7 Hz Gain -7.40 dB Q 1.65
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 9335.5 Hz Gain -2.68 dB Q 2.16

HSU MFL-6 APO Score EQ 96000Hz
December082025-174016

Preamp: -3.10 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 55.6 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 1.39
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 158.4 Hz Gain -2.64 dB Q 1.24
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 526.0 Hz Gain -1.92 dB Q 2.66
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1366.7 Hz Gain -1.09 dB Q 3.31
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2312.8 Hz Gain -2.33 dB Q 4.78
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3081.3 Hz Gain 9.33 dB Q 1.54
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 3054.5 Hz Gain -5.35 dB Q 6.00
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 4526.9 Hz Gain -8.32 dB Q 1.23
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 9862.2 Hz Gain -2.92 dB Q 2.46
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 13503.4 Hz Gain -0.80 dB Q 6.00

View attachment 495905
Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 495900

Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 495901

Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 495904

Regression - Tonal
View attachment 495903

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Large improvements?
View attachment 495902

@Maiky76,

I do not see a 'number' posted for the 'Score' EQ without Sub.

EDIT - I now see a '6.0' with a relevant graph.
 
Last edited:
Shame it doesn't have a bi-wiring terminal, this way maybe an easy external passive correction could be implemented as I had done on another loudspeaker:

 
Amir measured the (now discontinued) Hsu Research HB-1 MK2 bookshelf loudspeaker on June 22, 2021. The Estimated In-Room Response looks similar to about 3 kHz for each speaker.



1765215338480.png

1765215461225.png
 
Last edited:
Quite likely the supplier may have substituted either a different spec driver or could it be something in the crossover?

I have no idea what is likely. I think Dr. Hsu will eventually be aware of the review.
 
I have no idea what is likely. I think Dr. Hsu will eventually be aware of the review.
I’ve personally talked to him on the phone years ago. He doesn’t seem the type to let this sort of thing happen without correcting it
 
I’ve personally talked to him on the phone years ago. He doesn’t seem the type to let this sort of thing happen without correcting it
Yes, I have heard others comment positively on their interactions with Dr. Hsu. Perhaps he will engage with Amir regarding the measurements.
 
I don't know what they're researching at HSU Research, but it's not audio-related.
 
I'm surprised with all the Poor votes on this one. I voted fine, as there's obviously an issue with the design, but it's easily fixable with EQ and the speakers otherwise measure pretty well for the price. Bass extension is good, overall FR is pretty even until you hit that treble bump, distortion is fine for reasonable listening levels and you don't buy a $250 speaker to shake the walls.

Obviously a bit of cabinet and crossover redesign could take this to another level, though.
 
Back
Top Bottom