I will be running 7 x 50watts bass shakers for 7 home theater coaster seats (one in each 3 front seats and one in each 4 back row seats). So I assume I'd need about 350-500 watts of power. I spoke with Aura's rep and he recommended the amp below, which I think that is just way too expensive at $385 to just use for Bass Shakers.

Dayton HPSA1000-R 1000W Rackmount Subwoofer Amplifier ($385) (http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=300-810)

I really did not want to spend more than $150 on a 500 Watt amp, and I found this other brand on the site, which appears to be a stereo amp with AM/FM Tuner and Karoake features which I could care less for. But I also heard these PYLE amps are noisy and not worth the bargain.

Pyle Pro P1001AT 1000W Amplifier with Preamp & AM/FM Tuner (Only $127)( (http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=248-480)


Can someone please recommend a mono or a stereo amp that will suffice for my purposes. I need to power 7 x 50Watt Bass Shakers which will be wired and installed in my theater recliner seats (3 seats in front, and 4 seats in the back).


Could you please recommend a more affordable amp (brand/model) that I can find either locally or online , or on ebay or Craigslist? Thanks

You should probably pick up 1 more shaker to make your load even. In a post in this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=330436&page=54) thread I went into detail about how the math works out. You're forced now to run them all in series or end up with dissimilar shaking. One leg will have more power than the other.

If you balance them out you can do a mix of series and parallel which will let you get a cheaper amp.

I was told that I could use a $5 4 ohm 50 watts resistor instead of 8th shaker which would go to waste.

http://www.mcmelectronics.com/product/50WM4D0&CAWELAID=220556356

Also when I spoke with Michael Mckinnor (Aura's bass shaker tech rep) over the phone, he said that I can connect the 7 shakers without the resistor, he sent me this diagram and said that I wouldnt be able to tell the difference in shaking intensity since its not significant at all.

Let me know what you think on his diagram, he assured me that it will work just fine and I wont be able to notice the difference.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee88/damnsam77/Home%20Theater%20Construction%202008/7shakerhookup.jpg

Your pic came up as a red x.

If you use the resistor you do even the load out. I'm not sure how much you paid for your shakers but theyre cheap on ebay and I'd much rather have an extra shaker than something just evening the load out. All my chairs have 2 shakers in them and the effect is pretty excellent. I dont know if Id be happy with 1 per chair. All that being said its your install and you're free to do it how you want. :)

To keep things simple I'll just refer to the setup as 8 shakers since your resistor method is emulating the load of the 8th shaker.


The absolute easiest method to do would be to wire them up in sets of 2 shakers in series.

+1- +2-

+3- +4-

+5- +6-

+7- +8-


Then connect 2 sets into parallel.

+1- +2-
+3- +4-

+5- +6-
+7- +8-

Then wire each group up to a 2 channel amplifier thats capable of handling a 4 ohm load per channel. A simple stereo receiver from any era will work. If you get one with a remote control you can control the shaker intensity without getting up.

When choosing your amplifier make sure you understand the math on the measurements. If the specs say its 100 watt @ 8ohm per channel receiver thats safe to operate at 4 ohms per channel, generally it will be 200 watts per channel at 4 ohms.

If this works, go for it, otherwise I can suggest other methods.

Your pic came up as a red x.

It should come up fine now....please let me know if it makes sense. I am going through your post above as well.

Yeah. It works now.

Yeah. It works now.

So what's the verdict....I hope that since the guy works for Aura that he would know all the different ways to connect an even or odd number of shakers.

From just a cursory glance it looks like he's set you up for an 8 ohm load. If you plan on doing it that way buy your amp with that in mind. If you're going to do that method you're best off with a plate amp since theyre single channel and have LPFs build in however a good percentage of them are rated at 4 ohms so pay close attention to how they express the power output. I'll need a minute to do the math out to see how much power each shaker's getting and what you'll need to run the bunch.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee88/damnsam77/Home%20Theater%20Construction%202008/7shakerhookup.jpgI am not sure what connection is shown on the far right, exactly, but it looks like this would be either:


2 - serial 12ohm loads in parallel = 6ohms paralleled with a 4ohm load = 2.4ohms

OR

2 - serial 12ohm loads in parallel = 6ohms in series with a 4ohm load = 10ohms


Again, it is unclear what the connection is on the far right. I could be completely wrong here if my assumptions about it are incorrect.


It may just be 6ohms on one channel and 4ohm on another.

Ok I give up, it sounds like his connection is way too complicated, unclear, and unpredictable.

I will call Parts Express and ask them to ship me another Bass Shaker so that I will have 8 shakers (4 front and 4 back). I will install two shakers in the center front seat (captain' chair :D).

If I am following the simple 4 and 4 wiring, can you please point me to a wiring diagram (if there is one available) and please recommend a mono or stereo amp that will drive these shakers to their maximum potential? I really am looking for the simplest and most common method for wiring 8 shakers in two seating rows.

Sorry if I sound totally novice. It's my fault for leaving this last minute. I am about to finish my riser and close it shut, so I need to do whatever pre-wiring in advance.

I will have 3 seats in the front (with 4 shakers)
and will have 4 seats in the back (with 4 shakers)

I had just spoke with someone at Parts Express and they recommended a Series/Parallel connection at 2 ohms using a mono amp, like the Pyle model listed in my original post.

For a single channel you could do:

2 sets of (4 shakers in series = 16ohms) paralleled = 8ohms

I've been staring at spreadsheets all day so I'm a little loopy but I think when I clicked through on that pyle it said it only supported down to 40hz.

Features and Specifications: *Power output: 2 x 450 watts (1 kHz, peak power @ 2 ohms), 2 x 360 watts (1 kHz, peak power @ 4 ohms), 2 x 200 watts (1 kHz, peak power @ 8 ohms) *Frequency response: 40-15,000 Hz (±2 dB)

Most people use a 50hz lowpass filter to limit thier shakers to only 50hz and below. If that spec is infact true about the pyle you'll only get a 10hz window to shake in. I'd look elsewhere unless you can be sure that itll push lower frequencies.

Do not buy that Dayton amp....

1. it has a SSF at around 18Hz
2. it does not even come close to its rated specs (see measuring amps in the DIY forum)

Your BEST choice is to buy a EP2500 amp for under $300 on ebay (get another 25% off using live.com search)

That amp will drive your bass shakers just fine!!

Do not buy that Dayton amp....

1. it has a SSF at around 18Hz
2. it does not even come close to its rated specs (see measuring amps in the DIY forum)

Your BEST choice is to buy a EP2500 amp for under $300 on ebay (get another 25% off using live.com search)

That amp will drive your bass shakers just fine!!


I'm driving 4 shakers to 37 watts each with a 150watt amp. I doube he'll need a 2400 watt amp to run 8 shakers.

OR

4 pairs of (2 shakers in series = 8ohms) paralleled = 2ohms


Is lower impedance a goal?

A Buttkicker amp or two might work well powering shakers, since that is what they were designed to do. They can be found cheap used. I have a pair I'm putting on Ebay myself in the near future :)

Thanks for all the feedback guys, I will admit and say that I wouldn't know the technical difference between lower or higher impedence. I really want to figure out the most common wiring method to get the most power out of each shaker, whether its 2 ohm, 4, 8, or 12, series or parallel. Sorry but I am very novice to this. It seems like every one has their own way of wiring the same set of 8 speakers and I am confused as to which one to follow. I know there should be a link for a thread that has the diagrams to different shaker connections, depending on number of shaker, but I cannot find it.

I have already pre-wired two separate speaker cables from my AV rack location through the drywall into the seating area, just incase I would end up needing to do a stereo connection. So I can either use one speaker wire or two.

Sounds like I should stay away from both the Pyle and Dayton amps. The Behringer EP2500 amp looks good but it would be nice to get something that uses a remote so I could turn it on and off on increase/decrease output via remote. I was able to find the Behringer amp for $270 (shipping included)

Behringer EuroPower EP2500 (2 x 1200-Watt Power Amplifier) (http://www.uniquesquared.com/servlet/the-87/Behringer-EuroPower-EP2500-Power/Detail#itemadded)

I really want to figure out the most common wiring method to get the most power out of each shaker, whether its 2 ohm, 4, 8, or 12, series or parallel.I think that the lower you get the impedance, the more power you will have. If power is not going to be an issue, I would just stay at 4ohms (see below). Wouldn't need as robust an amp and will generate less heat than a 2ohm load.


It seems like every one has their own way of wiring the same set of 8 speakers and I am confused as to which one to follow.No, there are only a few ways to do it, depending upon how many channels you want to use, and fall within 2 to 8 ohms impedance. I don't think there is an easy way to maintain the 4ohm impedance with a single channel. You can get 2 channels of 4ohm impedance, though, by:

1 pair of (2 shakers in series = 8ohms) in parallel = 4ohms on each channel

http://home.comcast.net/~schiz/series_parallel.jpg

Just replace all the "8"s with "4"s.

You could do this on each channel and maintain the 4ohm load. This is the connection LHD21 presented in post#4.


I know there should be a link for a thread that has the diagrams to different shaker connections, depending on number of shaker.You may find THIS (http://www.bcae1.com/spkrmlti.htm) site useful. Just do a search on "series parallel calculator" and you'll get a lot of hits.


I have already pre-wired two separate speaker cables from my AV rack location through the drywall into the seating area, just incase I would end up needing to do a stereo connection. So I can either use one speaker wire or two.Yeah, you need to decide before you purchase the amp.

But do you really need 2400w?!?!?!?

You may find THIS (http://www.bcae1.com/spkrmlti.htm) site useful.


Thanks for the site, it looks very helpful. Actuall they had an example that exactly illustrates the way I want to hook up the 8 shakers.

http://www.bcae1.com/images/gifs/spk8s4.gif

It looks very straight forward and it will require a stereo amp that will support 4ohm. Does this look good to everyone? This appears to be the best and most effective way to run the wiring configuration at a matching 4 ohm throughout.

If that's the case, can I use this cheap Pyle stereo amp? It's listed at 2 x 360 watts (1 kHz, peak power @ 4 ohms)

Pyle Pro P1001AT 1000W Amplifier with Preamp ($127) (http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=248-480)






.

Thanks for the site, it looks very helpful. Actuall they had an example that exactly illustrates the way I want to hook up the 8 shakers.

http://www.bcae1.com/images/gifs/spk8s4.gif

NO. That's 4 - 4ohm speakers wired in parallel = 1ohm per channel

I showed in the diagram above in Post#18 how to wire 4 speakers (shakers) per channel and still maintain the impedance. Same as what LHD21 described in Post#4.


If that's the case, can I use this cheap Pyle stereo amp? It's listed at 2 x 360 watts (1 kHz, peak power @ 4 ohms)

Pyle Pro P1001AT 1000W Amplifier with Preamp ($127) (http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=248-480)I don't know anything about how much power you need, but that's considerably less power than the Behringer amp you linked to above.

I don't think you need all that functionality, either. You probably just need to be able to adjust the trim (levels). And that one's "not currently available". Someone who reviewed it said the fan was noisy. I would try to find something fanless unless you don't care.

Ok I am starting to put the pieces together. Now I understand the Series/Parallel method. So per the diagram and recommendations below, I would use a stereo amp that can handle 200watts per channel at 4 ohms (each shaker at 50 watts_4ohms x 4 shakers per channel = 200 watts]?

So I would follow the series/parallel diagram for each of the two channels (Left and Right channels) in a stereo amp?


Your pic came up as a red x.
To keep things simple I'll just refer to the setup as 8 shakers since your resistor method is emulating the load of the 8th shaker.


The absolute easiest method to do would be to wire them up in sets of 2 shakers in series.

+1- +2-

+3- +4-

+5- +6-

+7- +8-


Then connect 2 sets into parallel.

+1- +2-
+3- +4-

+5- +6-
+7- +8-

Then wire each group up to a 2 channel amplifier thats capable of handling a 4 ohm load per channel. A simple stereo receiver from any era will work. If you get one with a remote control you can control the shaker intensity without getting up.

When choosing your amplifier make sure you understand the math on the measurements. If the specs say its 100 watt @ 8ohm per channel receiver thats safe to operate at 4 ohms per channel, generally it will be 200 watts per channel at 4 ohms.

1 pair of (2 shakers in series = 8ohms) in parallel = 4ohms on each channel

http://home.comcast.net/~schiz/series_parallel.jpg

Just replace all the "8"s with "4"s.

You could do this on each channel and maintain the 4ohm load. This is the connection LHD21 presented in post#4.

I showed in the diagram above in Post#18 how to wire 4 speakers (shakers) per channel and still maintain the impedance. Same as what LHD21 described in Post#4.

Ok I am starting to put the pieces together. Now I understand the Series/Parallel method. So per the diagram and recommendations below, I would use a stereo amp that can handle 200watts per channel at 4 ohms (each shaker at 50 watts_4ohms x 4 shakers per channel = 200 watts]?I don't know how the power translates. Someone else will have to answer that. But if you are correct that you just add the power needed per shaker, then that's right. 4x50=200w per channel. Whether you will need that much power or if they can be driven beyond 50w, I don't know. I guess how much power you need depends upon what you're trying to shake.

But (I don't think) the shakers themselves dictate how much power they draw. If you connect 4 to an amp that is 1000w per channel, you'll be sending each shaker 250w. So, if you want to drive them at 50w, then you need an amp that is 200w/channel @ 4ohms.


So I would follow the series/parallel diagram for each of the two channels (Left and Right channels) in a stereo amp?Yes. To further elaborate, if you wire 2 - 4ohm shakers in series that would be 8ohms (4 + 4 = 8ohms) per serial pair. Then if you wire 2 of those serial pairs in parallel, the impedance would be 4ohms (8/2 = 4ohms; or (8x8)/(8+8) = 4ohms; or 1/((1/8)+(1/8)) = 4ohms - there's different ways to calculate this one).

Thanks for all the help. I totally understand the series/parallel connection now.

I will do the "stereo" two channel @ 4 ohm set up. It looks simple and gives me the option of simply unplugging one of the channels (stereo left or right) to turn off the shakers in one of the rows. I would rather go for that option for two reasons:

- the ability to independently operate the front and back rows using the left stereo channel for 4 shakers in back row and right stereo channel for 4 shakers in front row (using the series/parallel diagram above for each set of 4 shakers)

- Also, the fact that stereo amps are a dime a dozen compared to mono sub amps. I can find plenty of 200-500 watts per channel stereo amps for around $100-$200, while the mono amp tend to get more expensive.


Now my last lingering question is the amp's overall power per channel. Do the Shakers dictate the maximum wattage needed, or can a 1000 watt stereo amp (with a rating of 2 x 360 watts - 1 kHz, peak power @ 4 ohms) overload and destroy the 50 watt shakers if I turn the output level too high? Since 360 watts per channel divided by 4 shakers = 90 watts, thats almost twice the maximum output of the 4ohm 50watt shakers. Can I still safely use the 360 watt per channel Pyle amp without overloading the 50 watt shakers?

-Sam

I will do the "stereo" two channel @ 4 ohm set up. It looks simple and gives me the option of simply unplugging one of the channels (stereo left or right) to turn off the shakers in one of the rows.You can simply turn the level trim on that channel down. So, get an amp that has level trim knobs on the front unless you don't mind reaching around back.


Now my last lingering question is the amp's overall power per channel. Do the Shakers dictate the maximum wattage needed, or can a 1000 watt stereo amp (with a rating of 2 x 360 watts - 1 kHz, peak power @ 4 ohms) overload and destroy the 50 watt shakers if I turn the output level too high?I assume they are rated like speakers, but I don't know. Someone else will have to answer. But if they are, they are rated for 50w each. Whether you can safely feed them more power than that (like a speaker, within reason and when used reasonably), I don't know.

AURA sells a pair of 50w shakers with a 100w amp, so............

Hopefully that Pyle stereo amp is not a "Pile" of junk. it comes with a remote but I highly doubt you can decrease/increase level per channel and I dont see any controls in the front, but I will have easy access to the back of my rack, so I would just have to go up to it and disconnect the right or left channel if I ever needed to. I can certainly try it and return it if it totally sucks. At 360 watts per channel at 4ohms, it translates to up to 90 watts per shaker for. Thats almost twice the output of those 50 watt shakers....I wonder if I mistakingly turned the output/volume level too high by mistake if it would destory my 8 shakers and I would be out over $200!!! I know you can generally over drive speakers, not sure about almost doubling their max output.

You need to find an amp that supplies the right amount of power at 4 ohms. If you get a 100 watt at 8 ohms receiver that has 2 channels and is safe to operate at 4 ohms, it will put out 200 watts per channel at 4 ohms. Its rated 100w @ 8ohms but you're not feeding it 8ohms.

Also, this is very important. You need to find a receiver that does not have a sub or LFE out. If you get a standard 2 channel receiver, it pumps the full signal at the appropriate power out to your 2 channels. If it has a subwoofer or LFE out, it will strip the low frequency signal out to send it to an unamplified port. Since you're only trying to amplify the signal that would normally be pumped out that unamplified port, it does you no good to use that receiver.

You might be able to put the receiver in 2 channel stereo mode but there's no guaranteeing it. Steer clear of anything with either of those ports or anything described as a .1 receiver (2.1, 4.1, 5.1 etc)

If you're not using a plate amp with a LPF built in you'll need to buy a LPF that goes inline with your signal feed. I'm going to hazard a guess that you're feeding this whole setup from either another sub's pass through or directly from your receiver's LFE out. Most people find the shakers distracting when they shake at 50hz or above. Its not a set number, just common practice. Now you dont have to do this part but it definitely adds to the overall effect.

If you get a 100 watt at 8 ohms receiver that has 2 channels and is safe to operate at 4 ohms, it will put out 200 watts per channel at 4 ohms.Not necessarily.

He just needs to shop according the amp's 4ohm rating. Simple.


Also, this is very important. You need to find a receiver that does not have a sub or LFE out. If you get a standard 2 channel receiver, it pumps the full signal at the appropriate power out to your 2 channels. If it has a subwoofer or LFE out, it will strip the low frequency signal out to send it to an unamplified port. Since you're only trying to amplify the signal that would normally be pumped out that unamplified port, it does you no good to use that receiver. You might be able to put the receiver in 2 channel stereo mode but there's no guaranteeing it. Steer clear of anything with either of those ports or anything described as a .1 receiver (2.1, 4.1, 5.1 etc)OK, you're losing me here, LHD21. He needs an amp. He could use a receiver, but why? There aren't many 2-channel receivers with bass management, but even if there was, all he would have to do is avoid it by setting the speakers up as if they were LARGE.

If you're not using a plate amp with a LPF built in you'll need to buy a LPF that goes inline with your signal feed. I'm going to hazard a guess that you're feeding this whole setup from either another sub's pass through or directly from your receiver's LFE out. Most people find the shakers distracting when they shake at 50hz or above. Its not a set number, just common practice. Now you dont have to do this part but it definitely adds to the overall effect.Lost me again. What plate amp?

I don't know anything about them needing further low-passing. You may be correct, but I have not seen this discussed too much.


http://home.comcast.net/~schiz/shaker.jpg

Let me know what you think on his diagram, he assured me that it will work just fine and I wont be able to notice the difference.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee88/damnsam77/Home%20Theater%20Construction%202008/7shakerhookup.jpg

This is a really poor way to hook up the shakers. There are two sets of three in series, paralleled. Each series set of three = 12 ohms. Two sets paralleled = 6 ohms. The 6 ohm combination is then put in series with a 4 ohm load for a resulting 10 ohm load.

OK, now the amplifier is happy, but what about the power distribution?

Let's assume the amplifier has an output voltage of 30 volts...
(30 volts * 30 volts) / 10 ohms = the resulting power of 90 watts.
Ohms law says we would have 3 amps of current flowing. (30 volts / 10 ohms)

Now, 3 amps of current through the single 4 ohm shaker in series with all the rest will result in 12 volts of voltage drop.
(ohms-law.. 3 amps * 4 ohms = 12 volts)

3 amps of current through the set of 6 shakers wired as a 6 ohm load would be ( 3 amps * 6 ohms = 18 volts) Each shaker in that group would then 6 volts across it, for a total of 18 volts. The current is split equally between the two paralleled sets, so each set of three has 1.5 amps through it.

doing the math... volts * amps = wattage.
The single shaker 12 volts * 3 amps = 36 watts power.
Each of the other 6 shakers 6 volts * 1.5 amps = 9 watts of power.

36 watts to one shaker, 9 watts each to the others.... does not seem to equal to me...

Does it all add up... yup... 6 shakers @ 9 watts = 56 watts total+ 1 shaker @ 36 watts = 90 watts, exactly as ohms law predicts based on the output voltage of 30 volts of the amplifier.

Does the diagram look as good now? I think you will be able to tell the difference in the amount of shaking.:mad:

Joe L.

So what's the verdict....I hope that since the guy works for Aura that he would know all the different ways to connect an even or odd number of shakers.apparently he is a salesperson, not somebody with even a basic knowledge of ohms law...

Sorry, but his drawing/answer is just plain wrong..... You can connect them, and the load on the amplifier is OK, but the shaking is NOT even as the power distribution is not even close to being even.

Thanks for the site, it looks very helpful. Actuall they had an example that exactly illustrates the way I want to hook up the 8 shakers.

http://www.bcae1.com/images/gifs/spk8s4.gif

It looks very straight forward and it will require a stereo amp that will support 4ohm. Does this look good to everyone? This appears to be the best and most effective way to run the wiring configuration at a matching 4 ohm throughout.

If that's the case, can I use this cheap Pyle stereo amp? It's listed at 2 x 360 watts (1 kHz, peak power @ 4 ohms)

Pyle Pro P1001AT 1000W Amplifier with Preamp ($127) (http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=248-480)






.
If you wire 4 shakers on each channel that way they will all be in parallel. that would be a one ohm load. Way too low for almost any amplifier. You picked a bad site to go to for examples. They are focused on CAR Audio, where low impedance amplifiers exist, and they install extra batteries and alternators on the cars to run 1 ohm loads.

Joe L.

Thanks for all the help. I totally understand the series/parallel connection now.

I will do the "stereo" two channel @ 4 ohm set up. It looks simple and gives me the option of simply unplugging one of the channels (stereo left or right) to turn off the shakers in one of the rows. I would rather go for that option for two reasons:

- the ability to independently operate the front and back rows using the left stereo channel for 4 shakers in back row and right stereo channel for 4 shakers in front row (using the series/parallel diagram above for each set of 4 shakers)

- Also, the fact that stereo amps are a dime a dozen compared to mono sub amps. I can find plenty of 200-500 watts per channel stereo amps for around $100-$200, while the mono amp tend to get more expensive.


Now my last lingering question is the amp's overall power per channel. Do the Shakers dictate the maximum wattage needed, or can a 1000 watt stereo amp (with a rating of 2 x 360 watts - 1 kHz, peak power @ 4 ohms) overload and destroy the 50 watt shakers if I turn the output level too high? Since 360 watts per channel divided by 4 shakers = 90 watts, thats almost twice the maximum output of the 4ohm 50watt shakers. Can I still safely use the 360 watt per channel Pyle amp without overloading the 50 watt shakers?

-Sam
The Pyle amplifier is probable only able to output 100 watts or so. "Peak" output is meaningless... They don't even mention RMS output. it might not have a low enough frequency response for shaker use, as such, I'd forget it.

The 50 watt rating of the shaker is its THERMAL LIMIT, before it self-destructs from its voice coil overheating. The shakers need somewhere between 10 and 30 watts to shake. Much more than that and they will bottom out (reach their physical excursion limits) at some frequencies near their 40 Hz resonance frequency.

To drive 8 shakers, I'd be looking for a two channel amplifier, hook 4 in series parallel to each channel (as a resulting 4 ohm load) . I'd look for an amplifier somewhere around 100 - 150 watts per channel into 4 ohms.

Joe l.

...
Also, this is very important. You need to find a receiver that does not have a sub or LFE out. If you get a standard 2 channel receiver, it pumps the full signal at the appropriate power out to your 2 channels. If it has a subwoofer or LFE out, it will strip the low frequency signal out to send it to an unamplified port. Since you're only trying to amplify the signal that would normally be pumped out that unamplified port, it does you no good to use that receiver.
...

Any receiver that allows 2ch mode or redirecting the LFE to the front speakers would work fine.

To OP, if you want the bass shakers to fill in at low volumes, you will need a separate decoder for them in addition to an amp.

I just went through this whole mess.

When watching movies at reference level, my bass shakers are utterly useless since the subs shake everything in my room including the seats.
My only use for the bass shakers has been at low volumes to supplement the lacking bass.

If anyone wants them, I have 4 shakers (2 opened and 2 unopened) and a 6.1 ch (110w/ch) receiver I am willing to part with.

http://www.shoponkyo.com/detail.cfm?productid=TX-SR505&modelid=64&group_id=1&detail=1&ext_war=1

Go into it with a mono sub output of your main receiver. Probably use CD or DVD input. Then wire one shaker per channel, 7 channels... Set this receiver to all mono mode, it will send a equal signal to each amplified channel. I do this in my theater with the Onkyo 304, a step down in power, but is in no way lacking. You will have volume/shake control over each shaker on a individual basis, and over all volume control as well. It is a killer way to do it, and more then enough power, and no fancy wiring, one channel one shaker. And with the Aura's at 4 ohms, you will have plenty of power on hand. And no the receiver won't blow up, my 304 has been going strong for awhile now, maybe a year or more...

Any receiver that allows 2ch mode or redirecting the LFE to the front speakers would work fine.

To OP, if you want the bass shakers to fill in at low volumes, you will need a separate decoder for them in addition to an amp.

I just went through this whole mess.

When watching movies at reference level, my bass shakers are utterly useless since the subs shake everything in my room including the seats.
My only use for the bass shakers has been at low volumes to supplement the lacking bass.

If anyone wants them, I have 4 shakers (2 opened and 2 unopened) and a 6.1 ch (110w/ch) receiver I am willing to part with.

How did you mount them? Did you tighten them down to much?

I mounted my eight shakers straight to the floor, right beside the uprights/legs of my chairs. Just use sheetrock screws, cause they are black, and hold well enough. But on carpet if you tighten them down to much they are not going to do the job you want them to do.

PS I have been using auras since the early 90's when I saw some of their Aura Interactor Vests for sale...took them right apart got a amp, some sheetrock screws and in our first or second apartment had a whole lot of shaking goin' on, just by screwing the drivers to the carpeted floor. When we moved out of there, just unscrewed them and no one was the wiser.

OK, you're losing me here, LHD21. He needs an amp. He could use a receiver, but why? There aren't many 2-channel receivers with bass management, but even if there was, all he would have to do is avoid it by setting the speakers up as if they were LARGE.

My last 4 receivers would not push sub 120hz to the mains regardless of what mode you had them in or how you had the fronts set up. When I finally got my junk together and started buying quality equipment it became a null issue.

Problem is I still have 2 of those 4 receivers, neither of which I could use for my shaker hookup because they filtered the LFE out to an unamplified port. A cheap 2 channel receiver has the ability to run all 8 of his shakers and be remote controlled, which were his two requirements.

My last 4 receivers would not push sub 120hz to the mains regardless of what mode you had them in or how you had the fronts set up. When I finally got my junk together and started buying quality equipment it became a null issue.

Problem is I still have 2 of those 4 receivers, neither of which I could use for my shaker hookup because they filtered the LFE out to an unamplified port. A cheap 2 channel receiver has the ability to run all 8 of his shakers and be remote controlled, which were his two requirements.LHD21 is exactly right.

It is impossible to know what a given manufacturer will do if their receiver has built in bass management. On many (most) setting speakers to "LARGE" does not turn off bass management, it just changes the crossover point.

You really want an older receiver without a subwoofer output, something you might be able to get really cheep.

The shakers themselves do not need much power... 10 watts of so each will be more than most people need... The idea of using a 2400 watt amplifier, or a 1000 watt amplifier are just asking for trouble.

For what you are describing, an amplifier designed for subwoofer use is best. I, like many, use a "plate amplifier" I have 8 shakers, just like you are planning, they are in series-parallel, resulting in an 8 ohm load to my amplifier, so output from my amplifier is probably less than 100 watts.
(I don't know exactly, as it was reused from an old powered subwoofer)

I'm driving 4 shakers to 37 watts each with a 150watt amp. I doube he'll need a 2400 watt amp to run 8 shakers.

EP1500 its even cheaper ;)

The main point is that MOST amps have SFF so what about the content below 20Hz?

what amp do you use? He posted the crap Dayton 1000 amp as an option and that was $300+

Doesn't it matter how much power an amp has as long as the power needs are more then covered and its about the overall price period....I have a Stewart 1.2 amp ($160 from ebay) that does 1000W bridged and I would use that because its only $160.

A cheap BASH plate amp will work well too but again some have SFF built into them at around 18Hz.

I do know these cheap Aura's do not go that low though but I would buy based on upgrade possibilities just incase he wants to upgrade to the buttkickers that go done to 5Hz

When watching movies at reference level, my bass shakers are utterly useless since the subs shake everything in my room including the seats.
My only use for the bass shakers has been at low volumes to supplement the lacking bass.


Yep, once we have great sub systems we realize the shakers are not that important. Like you I use my at LOW listening levels.

How did you mount them? Did you tighten them down to much?

I mounted my eight shakers straight to the floor, right beside the uprights/legs of my chairs. Just use sheetrock screws, cause they are black, and hold well enough. But on carpet if you tighten them down to much they are not going to do the job you want them to do.

PS I have been using auras since the early 90's when I saw some of their Aura Interactor Vests for sale...took them right apart got a amp, some sheetrock screws and in our first or second apartment had a whole lot of shaking goin' on, just by screwing the drivers to the carpeted floor. When we moved out of there, just unscrewed them and no one was the wiser.

I only have two of the shakers installed - one on each side of the sofa.
Don't get me wrong, they shake well.
However, they are simply outclassed by my dual subs at high volumes.

My initial issue was that the sub out of my primary receiver was too low at low volumes to really move the shakers.

So, instead of doing:
HTPC optical -> Primary receiver sub out -> Subs & Shakers amp -> Shakers

I had to do:
HTPC optical -> Primary receiver sub out -> Subs
HTPC coaxial -> Secondary receiver sub out -> Shakers amp -> Shakers

That way, the shakers have their own independent volume control and crossover.
This works very well, and I call feel rich sub during low volume listening, but this is turning a bit cumbersome for that one purpose.

My last 4 receivers would not push sub 120hz to the mains regardless of what mode you had them in or how you had the fronts set up. When I finally got my junk together and started buying quality equipment it became a null issue.

Problem is I still have 2 of those 4 receivers, neither of which I could use for my shaker hookup because they filtered the LFE out to an unamplified port. A cheap 2 channel receiver has the ability to run all 8 of his shakers and be remote controlled, which were his two requirements.

I guess this could be a problem with some receivers.
However, every single receiver I have dealt with had these two options:
- redirect LFE to front speakers
- pure direct (straight /pure stereo) mode, where the LFE is not crossed out

Yep, once we have great sub systems we realize the shakers are not that important. Like you I use my at LOW listening levels.Very true.

I do have an EP2500 amplifier in my theater, but it powers a pair of 18" subwoofers, each in its own 12.5 cubic foot enclosure, each with a high excursion Ascendent Audio Avalanche driver, each displacing 6.5L of air (total of 13L displacement!!!).

The two subs are capable of rattling the room easily. I have the shakers on the seats to fill in the total experience, even though their frequency response does not go down anywhere close to the subwoofers themselves. (The subs start rolling off below 10 Hz)

It is the total experience... I need the more powerful (approx 650 watts per channel) amplifier for the subwoofers, I need a small amplifier for the shakers, but even without the shakers you can feel the bass... even at low levels.

Joe L.

JL,
I think I have realized yesterday that this diagram is wrong from start to finish. I personally have not had to brush up on my series/parallel wiring since high school I think, lol. But after reading up for a few hours yesterday I am starting to remember it all again.

The latest decision I made was to follow the advice given by LHD21 and sivadselim by following the diagram below (4 Shakers wired in Series/Parallel - at 4ohm per channel - left and right on a stereo amp or receiver). (Replace 8ohm with 4 ohm below)

http://home.comcast.net/~schiz/series_parallel.jpg

The challenge now is to find an affordable ans simple stereo amp or receiver that's rated at 200 watts per channel at 4ohm, and something that will simply pass through the low frequency signal come out of the receiver's sub output. I can set the LFE to 60hz, so I should only feel the anything 60 hz or below going through the shakers, right?

At this juncture, I just need help finding a good amp that will work for my purposes (stereo amp at 200 watts per channel at 4ohm).

WHOAAAAAA!!!!

I just noticed the entire 2nd page of new posts....better read up.

what amp do you use? He posted the crap Dayton 1000 amp as an option and that was $300+



I use a 150watt parts express plate amplifier I got from a forum member for $50 to drive my shakers. I love the fact that the volume control and LPF are at fingers reach mounted under my chair so I can change both during a movie to suit my tastes.



I only have two of the shakers installed - one on each side of the sofa.
Don't get me wrong, they shake well.
However, they are simply outclassed by my dual subs at high volumes.

My initial issue was that the sub out of my primary receiver was too low at low volumes to really move the shakers.

So, instead of doing:
HTPC optical -> Primary receiver sub out -> Subs & Shakers amp -> Shakers

I had to do:
HTPC optical -> Primary receiver sub out -> Subs
HTPC coaxial -> Secondary receiver sub out -> Shakers amp -> Shakers

That way, the shakers have their own independent volume control and crossover.
This works very well, and I call feel rich sub during low volume listening, but this is turning a bit cumbersome for that one purpose.



I guess this could be a problem with some receivers.
However, every single receiver I have dealt with had these two options:
- redirect LFE to front speakers
- pure direct (straight /pure stereo) mode, where the LFE is not crossed out

I guarantee if you switch to a sub plate amp thats getting the signal split directly from your main LFE output your experience will be completely different. It seems like you're walking around the mount to pee next door by using 2 other receivers.


At this juncture, I just need help finding a good amp that will work for my purposes (stereo amp at 200 watts per channel at 4ohm).

My good friend just found a cheapy 2 channel receiver at a pawn shop for $30 that came with the remote that hes using to run his shakers. We're doing the install this weekend but we did power them up on the floor to test whether the receiver would pass the signal and it worked like a charm.

So gathering from everyone's input, here is what I should be looking for - if I am doing a 4-shaker series/parallel wiring per channel at 4ohm each. So if you have any suggestions on an amp that you think would work, please let me know.



two channel amplifier

Preferably one with A/B or A+B siwtch and remote.

100 - 200 watts/channel at 4 ohms

Frequency Response that includes 10Hz - 100Hz

Amp or Receiver WITHOUT a Subwoofer output (or one with LFE/Bass management). Basically, if it had a sub out put, it will need to allow for 2ch mode (pure direct) or redirecting the LFE to the front speakers



Does that right about covers it all?

I am already looking for a 2 channel amp with these specifications, but if you can suggest one for me, I would really appreciate it. Better yet, if you have cheap simple 2-channel amp that meets these specs and would like part with it, then I am your buyer.


Thanks again for everyone's help! I know I can always rely on the AVS community :D

-Sam

You really want an older receiver without a subwoofer output, something you might be able to get really cheep.He's not looking for a receiver. Maybe he should be, as that is an option, but it would be a 2-channel receiver. Why would anyone get a multichannel receiver to run bass shakers?

But he is looking for an amp.

So gathering from everyone's input, here is what I should be looking for - if I am doing a 4-shaker series/parallel wiring per channel at 4ohm each.

Preferably one with A/B or A+B siwtch and remote.I'm not sure exactly how you are planning to use the A/B posts. I assume you are thinking that you can control which row of seatings' shakers are ON. But, be aware that most receiver/amp's "B" binding posts simply represent an additional pair of parallel posts off of the same amps as the "A" posts. In some rare instances they can be serially connected. If they ARE parallel posts, you CAN take advantage of this to facilitate wiring and wire each pair of serial shakers in the wiring scheme you will use to the "A" and "B" posts which will effectively wire 2 pairs of serial shakers in parallel. But in order to present the amp with the 4ohm load you are trying to achieve, you would want to use A+B, together, all the time. Otherwise, if you use "A" or "B" separately, you will only be presenting each amp with an 8ohm load, not a 4ohm load, and the wattage going to the shakers on "A" or "B", when used independently, will not be the same as it would be with A+B used simultaneously. Not that this is a bad thing necessarily, but you should be aware of the electrical implications of using the "A" and "B" posts independently.

If in doubt about whether the "B" posts are connected to the "A" posts in parallel or series, this can be ascertained by using the "B" posts alone, with the "A" posts unwired. If the "B" posts will operate alone, when A+B is selected but the "A" posts are unwired, they are very most likely parallel posts. But if the "B" posts will only operate if the "A" posts are turned on and wired, then they are very most likely serial posts. As I said, most "B" posts represent parallel posts. But in some instances, particularly with an older 2-channel receiver, they may be serial posts. If they are serial posts, there are different electrical implications.

Either way, parallel or serial, though, there are important electrical implications when using the A/B posts both independently and together.

So, if you want to be able to independently use the front and rear row shakers, the best way would be to wire one set of shakers to the left channel and one set to the right channel. If you have 2 separate level trims for each channel, this will be easy. But, IMO, A/B posts should only be used to facilitate easier wiring of the serial pairs in parallel and nothing else. If this is how they are utilized (to facilitate easier wiring), they should always be turned on simultaneously. If used independently, the impedance will be different than if they are used simultaneously (and vice versa). If they are used to facilitate easier wiring, you should connect the 2 serial pairs of each row to a separate channel, L or R. In other words, one serial pair of the front row's shakers to Left channel, A posts. The other pair of that row's serial shakers to Left channel, B posts. This is NOT how you would wire them, though, if you plan to be able to use A and B to control which row of shakers are turned on.

So, take home message? You do not NEED A/B binding posts. Unless you do not mind the impedance changing between 8 and 4ohms when you use a row independently, you should not use them as a way to control which row of shakers are turned on. I know this may be confusing you, so if any of this is not clear, please ask.

The A/B and A+B capabilities were suggested to me and they sounded good. But I will not pay more for a receiver or amp because they have those features. Like you said, I can do the same series parallel wiring into of both sets of 4-shakers into a 2-channel or stereo amp at 4ohms.

that is my main concern, is finding an amp that will do just that. Even if it's not an A/B amp. I will be happy with one stereo channel.


I'm not sure exactly how you are planning to use the A/B posts. I assume you are thinking that you can control which row of seatings' shakers are ON. But, be aware that most receiver/amp's "B" binding posts simply represent an additional pair of parallel posts off of the same amps as the "A" posts. In some rare instances they can be serially connected. If they are parallel posts, you CAN take advantage of this to facilitate wiring and wire each pair of serial shakers in the wiring scheme you will use to the "A" and "B" posts which will effectively wire 2 pairs of serial shakers in parallel. But in order to present the amp with the 4ohm load you are trying to achieve, you would want to use A+B, together, all the time. Otherwise, if you use "A" or "B" separately, you will only be presenting each amp with an 8ohm load, not a 4ohm load, and the wattage going to the shakers on "A" or "B", when used independently, will not be the same as it would be with A+B used simultaneously. Not that this is a bad thing necessarily, but you should be aware of the electrical implications of using the "A" and "B" posts independently.

If in doubt about whether the "B" posts are connected to the "A" posts in parallel or series, this can be ascertained by using the "B" posts alone, with the "A" posts unwired. If the "B" posts will operate alone, when A+B is selected but the "A" posts are unwired, they are very most likely parallel posts. But if the "B" posts will only operate if the "A" posts are turned on and wired, then they are very most likely serial posts. As I said, most "B" posts represent parallel posts. But in some instances, particularly with an older 2-channel receiver, they may be serial posts. But, either way, there are electrical implications when using the A/B posts.

So, if you want to be able to independently use the front and rear row shakers, the best way would be to wire one set of shakers to the left channel and one set to the right channel. If you have 2 separate level trims for each channel, this will be easy. But, IMO, A/B posts should only be used to facilitate easier wiring of the serial pairs in parallel and nothing else. If this is how they are utilized (to facilitate easier wiring), they should always be turned on simultaneously. If used independently, the impedance will be different than if they are used simultaneously (and vice versa).

In other words, you do not need A/B binding posts. If any of this is not clear, please ask.

The A/B and A+B capabilities were suggested to me and they sounded good.Well, as I am pointing out, if you plan to use them to independently control which row's shakers are ON, there are important electrical implications. If you follow the wiring diagram for the serial/parallel connections, you will only end up with a pair of (+) and (-) connections per each set of 4 shakers, so A/B posts would be useless. The only way to use both the A and B posts, assuming they ARE parallel posts, would be as a way to facilitate the connection of 2 pairs of serial shakers in parallel, in which case A and B would have to be used simultaneously (A+B) if a 4ohm load is your goal.

So, if you plan to use them to facilitate easier wiring, you have 2 ways to do it:

1.) The front row's 2 separate pairs of serial shakers CAN be wired to the A, left and right channel posts, and this will allow you to use A to operate only the front row's shakers, BUT when wired and used independently like this, the amps will only be presented with an 8ohm load.

2.) The other way to wire them would be to wire the front row's separate pairs of serial shakers to both of one channel's, left or right, A and B posts. In this case, both A and B would have to be turned on simultaneously for each row of shakers to be on and presenting the 4 ohm load. The CHANNEL utilized will dictate which set of shakers is ON.


I know that it might seem appealing and an easy way to do it, but my advice would be to NOT plan to use A/B posts as a way to control which row of shakers is ON.

Well, as I am pointing out, if you plan to use them to independently control which row's shakers are ON, there are important electrical implications. If you follow the wiring diagram for the serial/parallel connections, you will only end up with a pair of (+) and (-) connections per each set of 4 shakers, so A/B posts would be useless. The only way to use both the A and B posts, assuming they ARE parallel posts, would be as a way to facilitate the connection of 2 pairs of serial shakers in parallel, in which case A and B would have to be used simultaneously (A+B) if a 4ohm load is your goal.



4ohm at 100-200 watts per channel is indeed my goal.

It seems like all I could find online are amps and receivers rated at 8-16 ohms. I just need a stereo amp rated at 100-200 watts per channel at 4ohms, with a remote. If this was 1985, they would be a dime a dozen!

Again I am still looking for suggestions on a good amp that would work. it does not have to an A/B amp. Just a plain stereo amp that will pass through the already filtered LFE from my Denon 7.1 receiver's sub output.

my advice would be to NOT plan to use A/B posts as a way to control which row of shakers is ON.

I have reached the same conclusion as well. It seems too complicated when I am simply trying to do a very simple 2 channel 4 ohm serial/parallel wiring scheme.

It seems like all I could find online are amps and receivers rated at 8-16 ohms. I just need a stereo amp rated at 100-200 watts per channel at 4ohms, with a remote.Well, the remote capability may be an issue. There are plenty of amps out there that will operate at 4ohms.

Well, the remote capability may be an issue. There are plenty of amps out there that will operate at 4ohms.

I'd be willing to forget about the remote, if the amp would retain its previous volume settings when powered off/on.

I don't know, I have spent hours looking online, most of what I could find is 8-16ohms, and the few 4ohm rated amps I found are 500-2000 watts per channel, way more than what I need.

I have reached the same conclusion as well. It seems too complicated when I am simply trying to do a very simple 2 channel 4 ohm serial/parallel wiring scheme.The A/B posts, if they are parallel posts, CAN be used to facilitate a parallel connection of 2 serial pairs (4 total) shakers. But you would use A+B to complete the connection.

Now, depending upon exactly how you wired them, you COULD use A and B to independently turn on a set of 4 shakers, but the load in this case would only be 8ohms. This will not be a problem for an amp electrically as any amp that can handle 4ohms will easily handle 8ohms. The only implication here is that the wattage going to the independently used set of 4 shakers will be less at 8ohms.

The shakers MAY operate differently at 8ohms. But maybe not. I know that with speakers that are, for example, rated at 8ohms, operating them at 4ohms does not significantly alter their performance. But operating the same speakers at 16ohms WILL alter there performance characteristics significantly. But shakers are not speakers. The only thing you would worry about, wattage difference aside, is them being significantly weaker at 8ohms or their resonant frequency being altered. I would suspect that even if the resonant frequency is altered at 8ohms, it would not be significant. And based upon some of the posts in this thread, they seem to operate fine at 8ohms.

I just want you to be aware of and understand the implications of the A/B posts. They WILL allow you to connect 2 pairs of serially connected shakers (4 total) at the amp instead of in the actual wiring.

I'd be willing to forget about the remote, if the amp would retain its previous volume settings when powered off/on.Well, this is easy. If it is a simple 2 channel amp that has simple L/R level trims (volume knobs) on the front, or even on the rear, it will obviously maintain these settings when turned on and off. But I think that a remote WOULD be a worthwhile goal as it WILL allow you to adjust the shakers independently of your AVR's main volume setting.


I don't know, I have spent hours looking online, most of what I could find is 8-16ohms, and the few 4ohm rated amps I found are 500-2000 watts per channel, way more than what I need.As I said, 2-channel amps with a remote is difficult. And many 2-channel amps will not have any level trim, much less a separate one for left and right channel. An integrated amp will definitely give you a volume knob, but very likely will not allow each channel's level to be controlled independently, which is going to be useful in operating one row's shakers without the other's. But, honestly, I don't know how important that really is. If no one is sitting there, so what? They can still be ON. And, as you said earlier in the thread, you can disconnect them, either at the pre-amp level or speaker level, if it comes to that. You could easily rig a switch, either at the pre-amp level or speaker level, to accomplish this, too.

Why don't you check ebay, audiogon, and craigslist for a 2-channel integrated amp? I would expect these to be common and it may even have a remote.

I'd be willing to forget about the remote, if the amp would retain its previous volume settings when powered off/on.Well, this is easy. If it is a simple 2 channel amp that has simple L/R level trims (volume knobs) on the front, or even on the rear, it will obviously maintain these settings when turned on and off. But I think that a remote WOULD be a worthwhile goal as it WILL allow you to adjust the shakers independently of your AVR's main volume setting.


I don't know, I have spent hours looking online, most of what I could find is 8-16ohms, and the few 4ohm rated amps I found are 500-2000 watts per channel, way more than what I need.As I said, 2-channel amps with a remote is difficult. And many 2-channel amps will not have any level trim, much less a separate one for left and right channel. An integrated amp will definitely give you a volume knob, but very likely will not allow each channel's level to be controlled independently, which is going to be useful in operating one row's shakers without the other's. But, honestly, I don't know how important that really is. If no one is sitting there, so what? They can still be ON. And, as you said earlier in the thread, you can disconnect them, either at the pre-amp level or speaker level, if it comes to that. You could easily rig a switch, either at the pre-amp level or speaker level, to accomplish this, too.

Why don't you check ebay, audiogon, and craigslist for a 2-channel integrated amp? I would expect these to be common.

Also, try www.musiciansfriend.com. I forgot about them. Oodles of stuff there.

I'm going to keep posting what I find, here, in this post, so check back.

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Nady-XA300-Stereo-Power-Amplifier?sku=482059 = 2x150w @ 4ohms, fan controller

Now, many of these pro amps will not have RCA inputs; only XLR and 1/4". This is not a problem, but will require either RCA to XLR or RCA to 1/4" cable or adapter.

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/American-Audio-VLP300-Power-Amplifier?sku=803183 = 2x150w @ 4ohms, has high and low pass filter, but I assume you can bypass this (or use the low pass, perhaps)


http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product?sku=480780X = 2x230w @ 4ohms, scratch and dent saves you $20; also available new, fanless, RCA inputs
(Hmmm. This one looks really interesting, even for hi-fi applications.)




What is your budget, btw? An option is 2 separate amps, maybe (even 4).


Also, have you thought about putting the amp underneath (or near) the seating? Then you could easily change the volume from the seating. You would only have to run a single RCA cable from your equipment rack to the amp. The shaker wiring would be much shorter.


There ARE other ways to wire them if you wanted to consider running them at 8ohms or all 8 shakers off a monoblock/bridged amp.

What is your budget, btw? An option is 2 separate amps, maybe (even 4).


Also, have you thought about putting the amp underneath (or near) the seating? Then you could easily change the volume from the seating. You would only have to run a single RCA cable from your equipment rack to the amp. The shaker wiring would be much shorter.



Budget: Under $200 (Preferably around $100)

I really would like to keep it simple, one 2-channel amp in addition to the primary 7.1 receiver. A remote and standard RCA inputs and standard Speaker posts would sure be nice. Thats why I am looking for more of pro audio home theater components, rather than pro musicician amps.

I used to be in a band and most of these pro musician's amps listed above come with balanced and unbalanced XLR inputs and mono/stereo 1/4" inputs, forcing me to rig mutliple adapters whih I would simply rather avoid.

why not a Behringer A500?
Buy it now on ebay $186 cash back $46.50 in 60 days....what is not to like??


I used to be in a band and most of these pro musician's amps listed above come with balanced and unbalanced XLR inputs and mono/stereo 1/4" inputs, forcing me to rig mutliple adapters whih I would simply rather avoid.

Not true at all....RCA to XLR cables are common and cheap on monoprice.com. ALL My sub amps are pro amps with XLR connections and they are connect directly into my AVRs.

remotes? I do not know of any 2 channel amps that have remotes...I would be buying a couple if I did!!!

The pro amps have no problems with frequences down below 10Hz!

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product?sku=480780X = 2x230w @ 4ohms, scratch and dent saves you $20; also available new, fanless, RCA inputs (Hmmm. This one looks really interesting, even for hi-fi applications.)


why not a Behringer A500?
Buy it now on ebay $186 cash back $46.50 in 60 days....what is not to like??

The pro amps have no problems with frequences down below 10Hz!


Sivadselim/Penngray,
I must have missed seeing the 3rd link on Sivad's last post for the Behringer A500.

This is the IDEAL AMP!!!! I just went through reading the specs on Behringer's website

http://www.behringerdownload.de/A500/A500_ENG_Rev_A.pdf

It does have two sets of mono inputs, and each consist of RCA, 1/4", and XLR. So I can sinply use the RCA mono input on INPUT 1.

And the frequency response is as far low as 10Hz!!! This is Amazing!!!

And it has separate level controls for each channel!!! WOOOHOO!!!!!

Thank you so much guys!!! It doesn't have a remote, but I can certainly use this same A500 amp for music applications as well, so I hit two birds in one stone!

230 watts per channel at 4 ohm
10 Hz - 25 Khz response!!!
Dual channel gain controls!!
And it's rack mounted!!!

:D:D:D:D:D

why not a Behringer A500?
Buy it now on ebay $186 cash back $46.50 in 60 days....what is not to like??Yeah, that is what I linked to in one of the links, above. Is that a popular pro amp for use in hi-fi apps, penngray? What is the "low-down" on it? Has piqued my interest.


Not true at all....RCA to XLR cables are common and cheap on monoprice.com. ALL My sub amps are pro amps with XLR connections and they are connect directly into my AVRs.Yep. This is definitely a non-issue. Plenty of places to get XLR to RCA or 1/4" to RCA cables and adapters.


remotes? I do not know of any 2 channel amps that have remotes...I would be buying a couple if I did!!!You know. We should travel to China and get some amps made specifically for these sorts of non-standard HT apps. I can see a market for appropriately equipped and targeted wireless, RC-able amps for surrounds (or even all the speakers), passive subs, shakers, etc.. Have a little sender head unit with several RCA and speaker-level inputs that could be assigned to individual amps. Nice, assignable remote. Wanna go?

I would rather get the same amp from "American Musical"

$199 New, with Free Shipping, and FREE Extra Year of Warranty (24 months instead of 12 months).
http://www.americanmusical.com/Item--i-BEH-A500-LIST

This is the only issue that I could find with the amp, a user's review of the RCA inputs:

" The amps RCA inputs have a preamp in them that adds gain BUT affects the sound alittle. Pick up RCA to 1/4 inch adaptors and USE the 1/4 inch inputs. A little less gain but a much better sound. The RCA inputs sound a little thin/tinny"


What do you think? Should I just get the RCA to 1/4" or RCA to XLR from MonoPrice, to be safe incase the pre-amped RCA input sound bad?



.

This is the IDEAL AMP!!!! I just went through reading the specs on Behringer's website

http://www.behringerdownload.de/A500/A500_ENG_Rev_A.pdf

It does have two sets of mono inputs, and each consist of RCA, 1/4", and XLR. So I can sinply use the RCA mono input on INPUT 1.

And the frequency response is as far low as 10Hz!!! This is Amazing!!!

And it has separate level controls for each channel!!! WOOOHOO!!!!!

Thank you so much guys!!! It doesn't have a remote, but I can certainly use this same A500 amp for music applications as well, so I hit two birds in one stone!

230 watts per channel at 4 ohm
10 Hz - 25 Khz response!!!
Dual channel gain controls!!
And it's rack mounted!!!

:D:D:D:D:DLooks pretty f'n cool, too. And fanless.

I don't know if you saw it but, in lieu of not having a remote, consider placing the amp near or under your seating. Then, all you have to do is run a single RCA cable to it. Run the shaker wiring from there. Much neater and easier to deal with and gives you the ability to easily turn them up, down, on, and off from your seat.

This is the only issue that I could find with the amp, a user's review of the RCA inputs:

" The amps RCA inputs have a preamp in them that adds gain BUT affects the sound alittle. Pick up RCA to 1/4 inch adaptors and USE the 1/4 inch inputs. A little less gain but a much better sound. The RCA inputs sound a little thin/tinny"


What do you think? Should I just get the RCA to 1/4" or RCA to XLR from MonoPrice, to be safe incase the pre-amped RCA input sound bad?I don't know if the SQ is too important with shakers. The cables or adapters are inexpensive enough, though.

www.impactacoustics.com sells them cheap, too.

Not sure how the mono pre-amp level wiring works, exactly, but you may need to connect 2 channels to utilize the L/R level pots. Not sure. If you need to connect to 2 channels, you can probably buy an RCA to twin-XLR or RCA to twin-1/4" adapter if you want to run a single RCA cable and split it at the amp. Otherwise, running 2 cables (whatever the end is at the amp) is not a big deal.

Looks pretty f'n cool, too. And fanless.

I don't know if you saw it but, in lieu of not having a remote, consider placing the amp near or under your seating. Then, all you have to do is run a single RCA cable to it. Run the shaker wiring from there. Much neater and easier to deal with and gives you the ability to easily turn them up, down, on, and off.

I guess I could do that, but I have already done all the pre-wiring and drywalled. I ran plenty of resigard and smurf tube conduits for future wiring, so I will always have that option, but I honestly would rather keep everything in my AV server rack, which is literary 2-3 feet right of the back row riser.

I think I may go back and forth with the gain levels at first, but after a few movies I will more than likely pick a gain setting and stick with it. So a remote is not a MUST HAVE, it would have been good to be able to turn on/off using my Harmony 1000 remote, but I guess you can't haveyour cake and eat it too. I would take performance over convenience any day.

Where would I be able to find the right screws for mounting AV racks whether its a rack-mountable amp, or one of the standard 1U or 2U AV/server racks?

Is there a place locally or online that will sell heavy duty screws that will handle rack weight up to 50-60 pounds?

I went to Home Depot and Lowes and they dont have anything that will hold up to my 50 pound Denon Receiver and I dont want the screwes snapping from too much weight.

Where would I be able to find the right screws for mounting AV racks whether its a rack-mountable amp, or one of the standard 1U or 2U AV/server racks?

Is there a place locally or online that will sell heavy duty screws that will handle rack weight up to 50-60 pounds?

I went to Home Depot and Lowes and they dont have anything that will hold up to my 50 pound Denon Receiver and I dont want the screwes snapping from too much weight.I don't know if rack-mountable stuff is really meant to "hang" by their front panels and screws like that or not. Beats me, though.

I don't know if rack-mountable stuff is really meant to "hang" by their front panels and screws like that or not. Beats me, though.

It should, if it's classified as Rack-mountable, and it should already come with the screws needed in the box.

I will need more screwed for the other 4 or 5 shelves I will have for receiver, ps3, 360..etc.

I found these at Monoprice, I will get them with the Mono RCA to 1/4" and RCA to XLR adapters.

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=105&cp_id=10516&cs_id=1051601&p_id=996&seq=1&format=2

.............I will get them with the Mono RCA to 1/4" and RCA to XLR adapters.Well, you only need one or the other. 1/4" or XLR. And, yes, make certain they are mono ends.

why not a Behringer A500?
Buy it now on ebay $186 cash back $46.50 in 60 days....what is not to like??




Not true at all....RCA to XLR cables are common and cheap on monoprice.com. ALL My sub amps are pro amps with XLR connections and they are connect directly into my AVRs.

Be careful here... Most pro amplifiers use +4 dBM as their input level, consumer equipment uses -10dB as its line level. There is a huge mismatch there and if you do not consider it, the pro amplifier will put out hardly any power since it is being fed an input signal far below where it was designed.

You might be able to boost the subwoofer output of your normal receiver up to where you will make it work but then it might overload your subwoofer, as it will get far more signal than it was designed to handle.

The pro amps have no problems with frequences down below 10Hz!
Again, depends on the amplifier and its options. On my EP2500, there are high pass filters at either 50 or 30 Hz.. . they can be switched off, but other "Pro" amplifiers might also have them, but not be able to switch them off.

I would never make a blanket statement that a "pro" amplifier will go to below 10 Hz... it really depends on the amplifier.

You also need to consider "fan noise" on the pro amplifiers. They were never designed to be used in a quiet home theater. I have mine in a closet, and I can still hear its fan if I turn the sound down low...

Joe L.

Well, you only need one or the other. 1/4" or XLR. And, yes, make certain they are mono ends.

I was going to get both so I could see if there is a difference between either one. Also I read on the manual that this amp accepts stereo Balanced XLR or 1/4" inputs., so that's confusing since my source (sub out) is mono. Will that affect anything?

Joe,
Do you have any doubts if this amp would work for me? It's supposed to be "fanless" with a noise level of negative 100db, that's awefully quite, I dont think you could even put your ear to it and hear anything.


Be careful here... Most pro amplifiers use +4 dBM as their input level, consumer equipment uses -10dB as its line level. There is a huge mismatch there and if you do not consider it, the pro amplifier will put out hardly any power since it is being fed an input signal far below where it was designed.

You might be able to boost the subwoofer output of your normal receiver up to where you will make it work but then it might overload your subwoofer, as it will get far more signal than it was designed to handle.

Again, depends on the amplifier and its options. On my EP2500, there are high pass filters at either 50 or 30 Hz.. . they can be switched off, but other "Pro" amplifiers might also have them, but not be able to switch them off.

I would never make a blanket statement that a "pro" amplifier will go to below 10 Hz... it really depends on the amplifier.

You also need to consider "fan noise" on the pro amplifiers. They were never designed to be used in a quiet home theater. I have mine in a closet, and I can still hear its fan if I turn the sound down low...

Joe L.

I found these Female RCA to Mono Male 1/4" adapters on American Musical, where I plan on buying the A500 amp (These should work, right?)


http://www.americanmusical.com/Item--i-CBI-345IC--P-On


Also found these 10/32 .75" RAXXESS screws with washers that should work too


http://www.americanmusical.com/Item--i-RAX-PTSW25--P-On



.

Joe,
Do you have any doubts if this amp would work for me? It's supposed to be "fanless" with a noise level of negative 100db, that's awefully quite, I dont think you could even put your ear to it and hear anything.Since it is fanless, I expect no acoustic noise.
The spec you are quoting is for electrical noise in the output signal... not acoustic noise.

That amplifier ( Berhinger A500 ) has inputs for -10dB... so you are good to go. Looks like a good candidate to me. Nice find.

The Berhinger A500 already has RCA inputs, so you do not need any adapters to go from RCA to 1/4 inch phone plug.

This post on another forum seems to indicate it easily goes down to 10Hz.
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17004

You can find the manual here: http://www.behringerdownload.de/A500/A500_ENG_Rev_A.pdf

Joe L.

The Berhinger A500 already has RCA inputs, so you do not need any adapters to go from RCA to 1/4 inch phone plug.

Joe L.



This is why I had brought up the adapter idea (see post # 63 - or just read below)



..................

This is the only issue that I could find with the amp, a user's review of the RCA inputs:

" The amps RCA inputs have a preamp in them that adds gain BUT affects the sound alittle. Pick up RCA to 1/4 inch adaptors and USE the 1/4 inch inputs. A little less gain but a much better sound. The RCA inputs sound a little thin/tinny"





Overall, with the exception of not having a remote or Auto On/Off feature, this amp seems like a champ and a winner, thanks to sivadselim & penngray for finding it. Hopefully it will work ot great and I will give yall my feedback soon.

This is why I had brought up the adapter idea (see post # 63 - or just read below)






Overall, with the exception of not having a remote or Auto On/Off feature, this amp seems like a champ and a winner, thanks to sivadselim & penngray for finding it. Hopefully it will work ot great and I will give yall my feedback soon.
The adapters are cheap enough, but the 1/4 inch inputs are looking for +4dB input level, not -10. That is not "a little less gain" It is a lot less gain.

Now, we don't know the frequency response of the RCA input vs. the 1/4 inch phone jack, but there must be a preamp between them, and one with nearly 14 dB of gain. Who knows if it has the same low-frequency response.

You'll need to tell us once you get it all together. Since you are NOT driving speakers, but shakers, I doubt if your backsides will be able to tell any difference at all, regardless of the input used.

Last question for the day....

What has been the most common way to install these shakers? Inside the back panel of the seat? under the the bottom of the seat? On the sides?


I have the Coaster Showtime seats below, can I simply screw the shakers right on the inside framing of the chair with 1" drywall screws?

http://www.htauthority.com/index_files/ShowTimeCollection7537Zoom.htm

It's supposed to be "fanless" with a noise level of negative 100db, that's awefully quite, I dont think you could even put your ear to it and hear anything.The "noise" spec is not describing how loud the unit is. :D

Oman sent me this link for this nice little $20 gadget, hehe! I can plug the power cable of the Behringer A500 amp to it and then suddenly I have TOTAL IR Control over the unit which I am sure I can incorporate into my Harmony 1000 remote, or I could just use the remote that comes with the On/Off controller :D


It's only On/Off....I still have to get up and change gain levels, but I think after experiementing with the unit over a few days I will more than likely settle on a comfortable shaking level


http://www.taylorgifts.com/images/p31882b.jpg


http://www.taylorgifts.com/prodetail~itemNo~27137.asp

The "noise" spec is not describing how loud the unit is. :D

yep thats what I found out from J.L. :o hehe

But if it's being described as a fan-free noise-free operation, I will take their word for it. I am sure the combination of my PS3 and 360 noise will overpower anything in my AV rack. :D

Be careful here... Most pro amplifiers use +4 dBM as their input level, consumer equipment uses -10dB as its line level. There is a huge mismatch there and if you do not consider it, the pro amplifier will put out hardly any power since it is being fed an input signal far below where it was designed.The 1/4" and XLR ins are indeed +4.5dBu (1.3V). The RCA inputs are -10dBV (320mV).

Oman sent me this link for this nice little $20 gadget, hehe! I can plug the power cable of the Behringer A500 amp to it and then suddenly I have TOTAL IR Control over the unit which I am sure I can incorporate into my Harmony 1000 remote, or I could just use the remote that comes with the On/Off controller.Or just leave it ON all the time.

The 1/4" and XLR ins are indeed +4.5dBu (1.3V). The RCA inputs are -10dBV (320mV).

So should I worry as far as which input I should use? RCA or 1/4"? If I can't tell the difference, is that even still an issue?

Or just leave it ON all the time.

Thats what I was thinking too....if I leave it on with the gain levels set to a certain level at all times (with receiever powered off when I leave the room), will it hurt it on the long run to leave it on 24/7?

Hey, damnsam

I don't know what sub(s) you already have or are planning to use or how much the shakers cost you, but I'd be inclined to sink the money that they and this amp is going to cost you into a better sub(s).

My $0.02.

Hey, damnsam

I don't know what sub(s) you already have or are planning to use or how much the shakers cost you, but I'd be inclined to sink the money that they and this amp is going to cost you into a better sub(s).

My $0.02.


The shakers cost $25 each when they were on sale at Parts Express last month (so all 8 shakers were $200). So the Behringer Amp and 8 shakers come out to be about $400 (not bad for a little bass shaking fun).

I already have a brand new good Klipsch RT-12D subwoofer which I have not even unboxed yet. This is supposed to be the reference monster Sub that Klipsch makes, it's a $2200 sub, ofcourse I paid about 30-40% less than MSRP, but its supposed to be one of the top subs out there. Also, I already have the Denon 3808CI 7.1 receiver, so I think I am set for the next couple of years :)

http://www.klipsch.com/images/754/400x400.aspx

http://www.klipsch.com/products/details/rt-12d.aspx

I heard about JL Fathom subs after I had purchased this sub, so I can always sell the Klipsch down the road if I hate it.

............but its supposed to be one of the top subs out there.Well, this could get interesting. Personally, I am a fan of Klipsch's upper end subs. I have one, myself. I think they can hardly be beat for music performance.

But, even with your discount, and with the addition of the $400 you have spent (or are going to spend), I am not sure that there might not have been better options than that sub and shakers, especially for a dedicated theater room. A lot of people here would have told you a different way to spend that $1800.

So should I worry as far as which input I should use? RCA or 1/4"? If I can't tell the difference, is that even still an issue?If you run your single existing LFE output of your reciever into a "Y" splitter to feed the shaker amplifier AND the subwoofer you already own then it does make a huge difference which input you use on the A500 amplifier since you will be feeding the same level to both it and the subwoofer.

Feeding +4.5dB to the Klipsh Sub will probably result in it being overloaded.

but its supposed to be one of the top subs out there.

I doubt it come close to other big boys in Home Theater performance. I will give it maybe some musical qualities and Im a BIG klipsch fan but for Home Theater their subs are kind of a joke.

For $2K, I can personally do almost literally 10x better.

Be careful here... Most pro amplifiers use +4 dBM as their input level, consumer equipment uses -10dB as its line level. There is a huge mismatch there and if you do not consider it, the pro amplifier will put out hardly any power since it is being fed an input signal far below where it was designed.

You might be able to boost the subwoofer output of your normal receiver up to where you will make it work but then it might overload your subwoofer, as it will get far more signal than it was designed to handle.

Quote:
The pro amps have no problems with frequences down below 10Hz!

Again, depends on the amplifier and its options. On my EP2500, there are high pass filters at either 50 or 30 Hz.. . they can be switched off, but other "Pro" amplifiers might also have them, but not be able to switch them off.

I would never make a blanket statement that a "pro" amplifier will go to below 10 Hz... it really depends on the amplifier.

You also need to consider "fan noise" on the pro amplifiers. They were never designed to be used in a quiet home theater. I have mine in a closet, and I can still hear its fan if I turn the sound down low...

Joe L.

Spent a long time talking about the voltage issue problem in the DIY forum over the past couple of years...I have that problem with some of my AVRs so I do use line level shifters sometimes if needed. Its only needed if you do not have a big enough amp to offset the possible dB issue.

I also have more pro amps then most so you have to realize I have been running DIY subs, etc with them for several years already (I own 5 different pro amp brands!). I have bought and sold over 15 different pro amps in 2 years during my fun hobby of building my own speakers and subs....its great to try them all out :D

You should also realize that we have measured most pro amps in the DIY forum so its not just posting subjective opinion. Chuck runs hardcore tests to give us true specs. Personally I run all my amps to check what they do so I already know that following pro amps do not have SFF built into them, this list includes these..... EP2500, EP1500, QSC 1850, 2450, FACE TS1200.

Since you are a DIY guy, maybe you should be over on our DIY forum ;) You would realize how active I am there ;)

But, even with your discount, and with the addition of the $400 you have spent (or are going to spend), I am not sure that there might not have been better options than that sub and shakers, especially for a dedicated theater room. A lot of people here would have told you a different way to spend that $1800.

I doubt it come close to other big boys in Home Theater performance. I will give it maybe some musical qualities and Im a BIG klipsch fan but for Home Theater their subs are kind of a joke.

For $2K, I can personally do almost literally 10x better.


The bottom line for me is that I wanted to experience those shakers in my theater seats for the first time. I may end up hating them and consider selling the entire set, or I may love the "amatuer" effect of the shakers regardless of their acoustic abilities and such.

As far as the amp, I got it as part of a big ticket, my buddy and I got the same set and we got nearly a 38% discount on the entire ticket at Ultimate Electronics. So it was a good deal, if you can swallow the fact of spending over $1000 on a subwoofer.


I am sure there would have a number of different alternatives, better or worse. I just know that I wanted the bass shakers or butt kickers integrated into my home theater experience. And I solely went by the many excellent AV reviews about the Klipch sub. I am sure there are better options out there, this just happened to be my first pick. :D



Just for future references, what other subs would you have gone with in the $1000-$1700 range?




'

If you run your single existing LFE output of your reciever into a "Y" splitter to feed the shaker amplifier AND the subwoofer you already own then it does make a huge difference which input you use on the A500 amplifier since you will be feeding the same level to both it and the subwoofer.

Feeding +4.5dB to the Klipsh Sub will probably result in it being overloaded.


then I should just stick with using the RCA connection on Input-1 ?

..............but for Home Theater their subs are kind of a joke.

For $2K, I can personally do almost literally 10x better.Tsk, tsk. How do you measure this "10x better" exactly? ;)

Noussaine's review:

We measured the RT-12d's bass limits with it set to maximum bandwidth and placed in the optimal corner of a 7,500-cubic-foot room. In a smaller room you could expect 2 to 3 Hz deeper extension and up to 3 dB greater sound-pressure level (SPL).

This RT-12d has strong, uniform dynamic capability across its full range of frequencies, based on a maximum distortion threshold of 10%. Bass Uniformity was an impressive 97%. Maximum output, 110 dB SPL, occurs at a relatively low 32 Hz, and a minimum of 105 dB SPL was available at any frequency in the sub's range from 25 Hz and upward. Hooray! This is Olympic-class performance.

The sub's controls performed largely as advertised. Turning the crossover control downward also tended to modify static response at lower frequencies, however. For example, with the crossover set to a marked 40 Hz the lower -3-dB point shifted to 27 Hz and the upper point was 55 Hz, and overall level was reduced by 8 dB. From a marked 80 Hz and upward, the true crossover point was about 10 Hz lower than the marking but there was little volume/crossover interaction. The adjustable crossover slopes matched the true acoustical slopes reasonably closely, and there was only a moderate volume interaction. The "Punch" EQ setting added 2.6 dB below 65 Hz, while the "Depth" EQ added 3 dB at 60 Hz.

Because my facility does not suffer significant modal problems, I had to solicit locations where modes would form that were not at listening positions in order to test the RT-12d's room-correction circuitry. I found that Room EQ tended to work in moderation, addressing modal irregularities with finesse and understatement. It under-compensated both peaks and dips below 100 Hz and simply applied level adjustment for seats where response was already flat. I was able find a spot 5 feet from the floor where the EQ simply cut output by 6 dB below 100 Hz when the "problem" was a 125 Hz peak just outside the EQ and subwoofer bandwidth.

And the other reviewer in the same review:

The RT-12d sub is a sophisticated beast described elsewhere (see "Triangular Logic"). Here I need say only that it equalled the best subwoofer performance I've heard in my room. Its room-compensation seemed to work: Bottom-end sound was audibly tighter (but no less deep). A quick test-bench scan of the sub's processing, via its line outputs (for daisy-chaining additional subwoofers), showed the correction introduced a broad response notch in the 75-Hz region — about a third-octave higher than the primary modal peak in my room, but it did address the problem somewhat. Sahara's machine-gun and cannon fire slammed with all proper impact, but the soundtrack — even the copter crash — couldn't really bring a sweat to the RT-12d's tri-cornered brow. So I broke out some old standbys, such as the T. rex footfalls in Jurassic Park. Yeow! The earth moved....

Triangular Logic

With the RT-12d, Klipsch aims to outgun the biggest and baddest of 12-inch subs with a design that's highly capable, visually striking, and feature-laden. Its 12-inch front-firing ceramic-aluminum driver is driven by an 800-watt digital amplifier and "vented" via matching passive radiators on the other two sides of its triangular form, making this, technically, a bass-reflex design. Though clearly optimized for corner positioning, the RT-12d looked quite natural in my left-front wall placement.

Klipsch packed in some sophisticated electronics for tweaking the sub, though you wouldn't know. Its only controls are a five-button navigation pad and one-line display on top; all crossover, level, phase, EQ, and other settings are reached here, menu-driven. Unfortunately there's no supplied remote control, so a certain amount of back-and-forthing is inevitable to get it tuned if you're working alone, as I was. However, the RT-12d does have an IR sensor (and a USB port) on its rear panel for connection to custom remote systems. The USB port is also said to allow some advanced room-correction features through optional Klipsch software intended for professionals.

The sub relies on digital signal processing for its filtering and EQ and includes an automatic room-compensation routine accomplished with a supplied test mike. There are three recallable EQ modes ("Punch," "Depth," and "Flat") and five user memories for saving combinations of filter/crossover settings, EQ, and level. Of course, if you use the crossover in your receiver or preamp/processor and set the sub to its LFE (bypass) mode, most of this is moot.

The RT-12d performed brilliantly in my space, taking its place among the best subs I've ever tested (see the above RF-83 system review). Unless you're in a very large room, getting enough deep bass from it is unlikely to be a problem; finding the location that yields the smoothest bass should be your paramount concern. But get help: Because of its unusual shape and integral, carpet-grabbing feet, moving the 71-pound Klipsch about on your own is an invitation to back trouble.


http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/speakers/1887/klipsch-rf-83-home-theater-speaker-system.html

I also forgot to mention that we mod the pro amps fans all the time...$8 fan silent fan simply replaces the loud fan.

Just for future references, what other subs would you have gone with in the $1000-$1700 range?

There are several options but they are from SVS, HSU, eD or AV123. Unless you are like me and you build your own and for $1700 you would have 10x the output of that Klipsch sub but thats another story.

Honestly, you are going to enjoy your setup no matter what subjective opinion we will post here because sometimes we are talking about extreme SPL and deep lows that few people even have experienced in the first place.

Unless you are like me and you build your own and for $1700 you would have 10x the output of that Klipsch sub...........Maybe 10x the output at 15Hz. ;)


There's a lot of choices for $1800 (or less, even), damnsam. Your sub is fine, output-wise (although I do not know how big your theater is). It just doesn't reach as deep as many of the usual HT suspects.

PB13Ultra
pair of MFW15s
ULS15
Conquest

I am a picky listener, I am a lot more picky that your average Joe six pack (or should I say Joe the Plummer - incase you are not sick of hearing it already ;)) - That being said, I am no where near as picky as the audiophyles on this site, including the two of you :D and I mean no sarcasm, it sounds like you guys have a WEALTH of knowledge that I lack badly.

It sounded like the from the review Sivadselim posted that this Klipsch sub kicks ass in either settings (home theater or music) and being a musician I wanted to have a good 2.1 set up as well.

I know this is not the world's best amp, and I forunately did not pay the full price of it. But I know I am gonna enjoy it coming from an old Polk Audio set up that had 2 x 6" subs built in the front speakers (RT2000i)...yeah I had to listen to that crap for 10 yrs, where I never owned a separate sub. So I am pretty sure the Klipsch will be a significant upgrade. :D

My theater is somewhat large about 14 ft wide by 20 feet deep (not counting the open bar area in the back), there is no back wall, as I chose to combine the 10ft wide by 12 foot deep bar area into the theater (So total depth is probably more than 30 feet). I did the basic room analysis with Bryan Pape who had all the room measurements and plenty of pictures, and I have more than enough JM814 insulation to properly treat the room. Needless to say, I am about to finish my riser and stage to start working on installing the Track and Furring strips to prep for the JM814 and GOM treatment next week....see now I am sad again just thinking how much work I have left to do in the next 3 weeks. :mad:

But I truly thank you guys for spending so much time helping me out on this thread, I seriously cannot wait to taste or "hear" the fruit of my hard work. If you're ever int he Colorado area be sure to let me know, so you can come by and see the theater.

-Sam

There are several options but they are from SVS, HSU, eD or AV123. Unless you are like me and you build your own and for $1700 you would have 10x the output of that Klipsch sub but thats another story.

Honestly, you are going to enjoy your setup no matter what subjective opinion we will post here because sometimes we are talking about extreme SPL and deep lows that few people even have experienced in the first place.

Maybe 10x the output at 15Hz. ;)


There's a lot of choices for $1800 (or less, even), damnsam. Your sub is fine, output-wise (although I do not know how big your theater is). It just doesn't reach as deep as many of the usual HT suspects.

PB13Ultra
pair of MFW15s
ULS15
Conquest

............ it sounds like you guys have a WEALTH of knowledge that I lack badly.We're ******** artists. :eek:


If you're ever int he Colorado area be sure to let me know, so you can come by and see the theater.Gee. Never been there. ;)

He's not looking for a receiver. Maybe he should be, as that is an option, but it would be a 2-channel receiver. Why would anyone get a multichannel receiver to run bass shakers?

But he is looking for an amp.

TO HAVE EACH SHAKER ON SEPARATE CHANNELS, read my posts, it is simple run the receiver in all channel mono mode, you control exactly how much shaking each shaker gets with the channel level controls, then you get overall volume control, for all shakers. I have been doing this for along time, it is easy, it works, and no need for complicated wiring. One channel=one shaker, have more then seven shakers just run a pair in series of the center, or left, or right....$159 at www.shoponkyo.com for the 505 refurb.

I have been doing this for along time, it is easy, it works, and no need for complicated wiring. One channel=one shaker, have more then seven shakers just run a pair in series of the center, or left, or right....$159 at www.shoponkyo.com for the 505 refurb.

Why not just go to ebay and buy a sub $100 receiver and run it in 7-channel stereo mode ?


btw, its all fine if the receiver goes down below 20Hz.

we're ******** artists.

+1 :d

Maybe 10x the output at 15Hz.

Nope, 10x the displacement period! Look at the liters of displacement of that 12" driver then look at the displacement of 4 18" drivers....its close to 10x...I was not BSing that number.

In the end the one thing I have learned after building many subs is that one of the most important values we should always look at it is the displacement (2* Xmax * Sd) and I should have also said displacement because yes, output means dBs to everyone ;)

We're ******** artists. :eek:


Gee. Never been there. ;)

Haaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! I just noticed your location, you didnt have to be such a smartazz :D

Where in CO are you?

Nope, 10x the displacement period! Look at the liters of displacement of that 12" driver then look at the displacement of 4 18" drivers....its close to 10x...I was not BSing that number.

In the end the one thing I have learned after building many subs is that one of the most important values we should always look at it is the displacement (2* Xmax * Sd) and I should have also said displacement because yes, output means dBs to everyone ;)It really comes down to basic physics.
The smallest driver can reproduce frequencies down to 20 Hz and below. ( earphones, for example have a tiny driver, yet many can reproduce reasonable bass) If a given driver can move its cone back and forth 200 times a second, it can also move slower and do it 20 times per second.

What sets ANY subwoofer apart from the rest is its ability to pressurize the volume of air in the listening area. Equal sound pressure will equate to equal loudness. It allows your earphone, pressurizing the air in your ear canal, to be as loud as a conventional speaker, pressurizing the air in your theater.

The diaphragm of the earphone is much smaller, and moves far less distance, but it has a tiny amount of air it needs to pressurize. Remember, we determine loudness by its relative Sound-Pressure-Level (SPL)

Even for a given size driver, the physical construction will dictate how far the cone can travel and follow the input signal in a linear fashion. If the movement is not linear, the sound will be distorted. If the cone cannot move enough to pressurize the air in your listening environment enough, you will not be able to keep up with the other speakers in the room reproducing the frequencies from 100 Hz upward. The higher you go in frequency, the easier it is to pressurize the air... That is why you can have a small tweeter and it will keep up in loudness with one or two much larger woofers.

The goal is to be able to move the cone of the driver in step with the input (linearly). You can make any tradeoffs as you like, but generally, the further you move the cone, the less linear it will be, especially once you get anywhere near to the excursion limits.

Your 12" driver is able to move more air than most 10" drivers, and certainly more than most 8" drivers, but there could be exceptions for some very special 8" drivers. The only way to know is to compare the specification for "displacement" That figure is sometimes difficult to determine as some manufacturers do not list it.

The 15" Tempest driver I had in the first DIY subwoofer I built could displace 2.5L of air. It did fine in my theater until movie sound engineers started adding loud low frequency effects. War-of-the-worlds chapter 5 made me want to upgrade; My 15" driver was unable to keep up at higher listening levels. It reached its excursion limits and bottomed out.

My current pair of 18" subwoofer drivers each have a linear one-way xmax of 29mm. They can each displace 6.5L of air. Together, they can easily pressurize the air in my theater to match the other speakers, even when playing at very loud listening levels.

It really comes down to physics, every time you go down in frequency one octave, you must move 4 times the volume of air to get the same apparent sound-pressure-level. Most subwoofers don't even try to reproduce below 20Hz. Many barely get to 30Hz.

When penngrey says you can get 10x the performance for the same cost, he is not lying, but it does involve a much larger enclosure than your sub, or a manifold to an adjacent isolated space for an infinite baffle arrangement. It probably involves some DIY construction and labor.

It is all about tradeoffs. You will love your klipsch sub once it is in place, but it cannot compare to a sub that can displace more air. Even if you kept the larger sub dialed down to lower listening levels, it would barely need to move its cone(s) to equal the displacement of the smaller 12" cone. That would usually be far more linear movement, and therefore less distortion, and better... far better.

You cannot hear much below 20 Hz, but you sure can feel it. The shakers will help, but they don't go much below 30Hz, neither do the subwoofers in commercial theaters... if they did, you would be able to hear the bass in the movie next door.

Good luck with your theater, your shakers, and your subwoofer. It sounds like you are in for a treat... but don't be surprised if you find the need to upgrade the sub at some point... especially if you like to turn the volume up.

Joe L.

It is all about tradeoffs. You will love your klipsch sub once it is in place, but it cannot compare to a sub that can displace more air. Even if you kept the larger sub dialed down to lower listening levels, it would barely need to move its cone(s) to equal the displacement of the smaller 12" cone. That would usually be far more linear movement, and therefore less distortion, and better... far better.

You cannot hear much below 20 Hz, but you sure can feel it. The shakers will help, but they don't go much below 30Hz, neither do the subwoofers in commercial theaters... if they did, you would be able to hear the bass in the movie next door.

Good luck with your theater, your shakers, and your subwoofer. It sounds like you are in for a treat... but don't be surprised if you find the need to upgrade the sub at some point... especially if you like to turn the volume up.

Joe L.

Thanks Joe, I will keep that in mind. Let me put it this way. There is not a single piece of AV or Home Theater Electronics that will last in my house for more than 2-3 years, I always tend to upgrade every 1-2 years. So I can almost guarantee that I will probably have a new set of speakers, maybe get in the DIY subwoofers, and probably have tried 3 or 4 projectors over the next 5 years. I had just gotten a JVC RS2 in July which I now have sold in favor of waiting for the JVC RS20. I try to buy everything as cheap as possible and keep all of the original boxes and documentation, and I am very meticulous at taking care of my gear, most of it won't even have a single scratch and would look brand new years after owning it. So I normally have pretty good luck selling what I have for little loss and buying the next big thing.

My main concern at this point, is to FINISH the construction of my theater, when that's complete, the work itself is almost permanent. Howver, AV componenets, projectors, and speakers will always come and go. So it will be trial and error for me over the next few years but I have a good feeling that these Klipsch speakers and sub will satisfy my movie, music, and gaming needs. But I am sure that the more I get into it, the more pick y I will become :D

BTW, I've ordered my Behringer A500 and the 8th Shaker. American Musical doubled the 1 yr factort warranty automatically, not that I am worried, Behringer makes excellent products, half of my Live and Studio gear when I was in a band were Berhringers. Also I was able to convince Parts Express to sell me the $37 Pro Shaker for $25, I just told them I meant to order 8 when they were on sale for $25 last month, but I ordered 7 by mistake. They were very nice about it and gave me the discount.

I like SRR's idea for having a 7.1 receiver drive each shaker separately, but I think the performance I will get over all with the 2-channel set up on the Behringer will be quite satisfactory.

TO HAVE EACH SHAKER ON SEPARATE CHANNELS, read my posts, it is simple run the receiver in all channel mono mode, you control exactly how much shaking each shaker gets with the channel level controls, then you get overall volume control, for all shakers. I have been doing this for along time, it is easy, it works, and no need for complicated wiring. One channel=one shaker, have more then seven shakers just run a pair in series of the center, or left, or right....$159 at www.shoponkyo.com for the 505 refurb.I see. I was addressing J.L.. And I do not think that was what he meant, either (maybe?). But it does sound intriguing.

This post is regarding SRR's 7.1 set up. But JL, Sivadselim, and Penngray and anyone else feel free to chime in.

I do have to admit that SRR's idea is very intriguing. I just paid for the 8th Shaker $25 and purchased the new Behringer A500 2-channel amp for $200 (About $230 total for both), BUT, I can still return all of this stuff if I want to, especially if I can get this refurbish onkyo 7.1 receiver for $155. Not to mention I would have a working remote to turn on/off the receiver and each channel indvidually wihout getting off my seat.

I am interested to know a little more about how SRR connected the Onkyo receiver and shakers and how is the overall performance compared to the series/parallel through mono or 2-channel wiring that is more common with bass shaker seat wiring.

I assume you ran the sub out from your primary receiver into the Pre-amp Sub input or just any RCA input on your cheaper 7.1 Onkyo receiver.

Here are my questions:

- How did you direct all the low frequencies to the front channels? I know you can set the cross over freq to 60 hz or 50 hz...etc. I assume you chose to direct all LFE to front speakers, does that include center and 4 surrounds too?

- Also since most receivers are 8 ohm and have a freq response of 20hz - 20KH, then exactly how responsive are those bass shakers? are they going to shake on everything or only low frequencies between 80hz - 20 hz. What about anything below 20 Hz? Would the Shakers not even recgonize and process the signal since the reciever will only go as far down as 20hz?

- Also, at 8ohms per channel it seems like you are under-driving the 4ohm Pro Shakers. Do you just turn up each channel a little more to achieve the intensity you would have gotten with 4ohm impedence?

- Bottom line, do you all think there is a siginificant improvement using a 4ohm per channel 2-channel amp which would deliver about 50 watts per shaker, over, a 7.1 mutlichannel set up?



I like the idea of controlling each shaker separatley, not that I would wanna get crazy and set each one up seprately, but I do like the idea of having that option there for me if I need it. Do you think it's worth it, and will the shaker's performance degrade if I use this 8 ohm mutlichannel set up for each shaker versus a 2-channel 4ohm approach with the Behringer amp?

This post is regarding SRR's 7.1 set up. But JL, Sivadselim, and Penngray and anyone else feel free to chime in.

I do have to admit that SRR's idea is very intriguing. I just paid for the 8th Shaker $25 and purchased the new Behringer A500 2-channel amp for $200 (About $230 total for both), BUT, I can still return all of this stuff if I want to, especially if I can get this refurbish onkyo 7.1 receiver for $155. Not to mention I would have a working remote to turn on/off the receiver and each channel indvidually wihout getting off my seat.

I am interested to know a little more about how SRR connected the Onkyo receiver and shakers and how is the overall performance compared to the series/parallel through mono or 2-channel wiring that is more common with bass shaker seat wiring.

I assume you ran the sub out from your primary receiver into the Pre-amp Sub input or just any RCA input on your cheaper 7.1 Onkyo receiver.

Here are my questions:

- How did you direct all the low frequencies to the front channels? I know you can set the cross over freq to 60 hz or 50 hz...etc. I assume you chose to direct all LFE to front speakers, does that include center and 4 surrounds too?

- Also since most receivers are 8 ohm and have a freq response of 20hz - 20KH, then exactly how responsive are those bass shakers? are they going to shake on everything or only low frequencies between 80hz - 20 hz. What about anything below 20 Hz? Would the Shakers not even recgonize and process the signal since the reciever will only go as far down as 20hz?

- Also, at 8ohms per channel it seems like you are under-driving the 4ohm Pro Shakers. Do you just turn up each channel a little more to achieve the intensity you would have gotten with 4ohm impedence?

- Bottom line, do you all think there is a siginificant improvement using a 4ohm per channel 2-channel amp which would deliver about 50 watts per shaker, over, a 7.1 mutlichannel set up?



I like the idea of controlling each shaker separatley, not that I would wanna get crazy and set each one up seprately, but I do like the idea of having that option there for me if I need it. Do you think it's worth it, and will the shaker's performance degrade if I use this 8 ohm mutlichannel set up for each shaker versus a 2-channel 4ohm approach with the Behringer amp?

Well like I said in a previous post in this thread. All you do is run a mono, line from the subwoofer out of your MAIN receiver/processor, this of course would need a Y cord one line going to this new receiver and one line to your sub. On the MAIN receiver, you set your crossovers to 60-80Hz for each speaker as warranted, set the LFE low pass filter to 120Hz. This will send everything below 60-80Hz from your main 7.0 speakers to your sub and shakers, and it will send the full bandpass of the LFE channel to your shakers and sub. That is a good thing, as there is not much on the .1 channel or LFE above 100Hz anyways. Next on the NEW receiver you just go into say the CD analog left input. Switch the NEW receiver to All Channel Mono. That will take the mono input from your MAIN receivers subwoofer out, and send that signal to all 7 channels of amplification that the receiver has in it. You will set the NEW receiver to fullband or wide band IE, no crossovers for each of the 7 channels, also setup as no subwoofer out, this will send the full frequency of your sub woofer out on your main receiver 1hz~-120Hz to each of the 7 channels of amplification. Remember your speakers are crossovered at 60-80Hz in your main receiver, so the shakers are only really getting that bass 60-80Hz and down. The LFE channel will be sent full band to the shakers which is 1~-120Hz. Now with all 7 channels of the NEW receiver set to full band, no subwoofer, you can control the shaking of each of the 7 shakers individually. With the channel volume controls +/- 15dB (I think it is +/- 15dB) PLENTY of range. If you mount certain shakers one way and others another way having individual control is paramount, cause mounting is the key to how much shaking is going on. As I have learned if you are mounting them straight to a carpeted floor how tight you screw the screws in effects how much shaking you will get out of them, to tight and they aren't gonna shake. Oh and of course now you also have a remote to turn the NEW receiver on and off and you have volume/shake control of all the shakers as a whole. It will be running the each channel at 4 Ohms, which is plenty fine, it is how I do it, and remember it all comes down to how the shakers are mounted, to tight to the floor and blah, just right your feet are going to shake, the frame of the couch/theater seating is going to shake/and with the frame shaking your butt back and head is going to shake :D:eek::D.

Hope that clears it up some.

This post is regarding SRR's 7.1 set up. But JL, Sivadselim, and Penngray and anyone else feel free to chime in.

I do have to admit that SRR's idea is very intriguing. I just paid for the 8th Shaker $25 and purchased the new Behringer A500 2-channel amp for $200 (About $230 total for both), BUT, I can still return all of this stuff if I want to, especially if I can get this refurbish onkyo 7.1 receiver for $155. Not to mention I would have a working remote to turn on/off the receiver and each channel indvidually wihout getting off my seat.

I am interested to know a little more about how SRR connected the Onkyo receiver and shakers and how is the overall performance compared to the series/parallel through mono or 2-channel wiring that is more common with bass shaker seat wiring.

I assume you ran the sub out from your primary receiver into the Pre-amp Sub input or just any RCA input on your cheaper 7.1 Onkyo receiver.

Here are my questions:

- How did you direct all the low frequencies to the front channels? I know you can set the cross over freq to 60 hz or 50 hz...etc. I assume you chose to direct all LFE to front speakers, does that include center and 4 surrounds too?

- Also since most receivers are 8 ohm and have a freq response of 20hz - 20KH, then exactly how responsive are those bass shakers? are they going to shake on everything or only low frequencies between 80hz - 20 hz. What about anything below 20 Hz? Would the Shakers not even recgonize and process the signal since the reciever will only go as far down as 20hz?

- Also, at 8ohms per channel it seems like you are under-driving the 4ohm Pro Shakers. Do you just turn up each channel a little more to achieve the intensity you would have gotten with 4ohm impedence?

- Bottom line, do you all think there is a siginificant improvement using a 4ohm per channel 2-channel amp which would deliver about 50 watts per shaker, over, a 7.1 mutlichannel set up?



I like the idea of controlling each shaker separatley, not that I would wanna get crazy and set each one up seprately, but I do like the idea of having that option there for me if I need it. Do you think it's worth it, and will the shaker's performance degrade if I use this 8 ohm mutlichannel set up for each shaker versus a 2-channel 4ohm approach with the Behringer amp?

I use the Behringer amp to drive my shaker riser. Zero problems with this setup for 2 years. The amp never gets hot driving the array at full power. It's rock soild into just about any 4 ohm load. http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17004
http://mysite.verizon.net/res02dad/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/PC170091.jpg.w560h747.jpg
I use the one channel of the BFD to smooth out the shakers and riser FR and the other channel for the subwoofers EQ.
http://mysite.verizon.net/res02dad/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/p1060244.jpg

I would rather mount the shakers onto each chair ndividually rather than the carpetted floor or the riser. Plus I have concrete floors so I dont think mounting the shakers to the floors is gonna do me any good, and also I only hve a riser for the back row, the front row sits right on the ground level.

I want to feel the shaking and rattling in my seat, so where within the seat should I mount the the shakers? I have the Coaster Showtime seats and I was told I should place them on the back piece, but I wanted a little more feedback and pictures would certainly help. I would hate to mount it somewhere inside the chair, hate it, then unmount it else where within the chair until I hit the right spot.

What's the most common and most effective way to mount these shakers onto each chair?

I would rather mount the shakers onto each chair ndividually rather than the carpetted floor or the riser. Plus I have concrete floors so I dont think mounting the shakers to the floors is gonna do me any good, and also I only hve a riser for the back row, the front row sits right on the ground level.

I want to feel the shaking and rattling in my seat, so where within the seat should I mount the the shakers? I have the Coaster Showtime seats and I was told I should place them on the back piece, but I wanted a little more feedback and pictures would certainly help. I would hate to mount it somewhere inside the chair, hate it, then unmount it else where within the chair until I hit the right spot.

What's the most common and most effective way to mount these shakers onto each chair?

My front row is on concrete, so what I did is bought some half inch plywood the size of my coaster seating, and with carpet remnants left over from carpeting the theater, I carpeted around the plywood edge, so you can't see the wood itself. Then I mounted two shakers close to legs that are in the back directly to the plywood (row of three seats). Believe me there is plenty of shaking going on. I just showed off my theater to someone I sold my BFD to, he LOVED the shakers. If you mount to just the back or butt of the seat, you are bound to hate the effect IMHO.