AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › late night thoughts about DIY vs Comercial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

late night thoughts about DIY vs Comercial - Page 3

post #61 of 682
3/6/08 at 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

.

I'm with Kevin. If someone wants a $600 sub in their system, I recommend the MFW-15

I agree.

I always have friends that are on the fence about buying vs. building.

Do you have a price list for your creations?
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #62 of 682
3/8/08 at 12:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post


I've always argued that increasing the box size to increase efficiency at the bottom end is a wash because a HP filter becomes necessary to protect from mechanical failure, and chopping off a couple octaves of response is in no way 'efficient'.

Bosso

I'm not getting this.

Just throwing arbitrary numbers around.. If you NEED to move the cone XX mm in the bottom octave to be useful, why would you not want a lower Q (say .577) and do it with 1000 watts instead of 4000 watts in a higher q (.707) and adding more power compression? Is a HP really necessary instead of calculating the proper amount of power to use as a maximum or doing an EQ shelf cut? I dont believe people with smaller IBs (2x18) are using high pass filters yet they have the ultimate large box. You either make it hard to move the cone down low (small box) and squeeze your amps to make it happen, or ease up on the job and watch where you walk.

What am i missing? fill me in!

Speaking of IBs, Isn't it silly how IBs are the greatest thing since sliced bread, yet the same # of drivers in a sealed config is looked upon as lesser. They both move the same amount of air...

Thanx,
Dr V
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 682
3/8/08 at 5:45am
WOW!.. what a Thread. I cant figure how this didn't catch my attention earlier??

Although the field is changing, I never factor in the cost of a amp unless I have to buy one. If I do buy one, then it gets prorated over the course of time. The cost of sono or MDF is cheap enough that it doesn't get factored, that falls under discretionary spending. I periodically use cabs more than once - chop jobs, different driver, ported transformed to sealed or both. If it's a ported unit I'm building, then the cost of the port isn't factored because I have a pile 6" sono and 4" PVC, not forgetting that it falls under the discretionary budget if I have to buy. Lets see.. screws, caulk and clamps?.. already have a good assortment. No cost, or prorated at the worst form of figuring. I always factor veneer for some reason though, or whatever type of finish Q, no cost, have. LT, no cost,". So what's that leave? I figure my next sub is gonna cost me about $190 for the driver since I want to play with a new 12" instead of a 15" for awhile. Oh! I forgot about the time factor? What is this time factor thing anyway when it relates to a guys hobby and something he loves to do? Nope! that also doesn't get factored.
Quote:


Guys, please remember you are not trying to convince me DIY is fun and great.

In all seriousness, I truly understand your question and the thinking behind it. I used to buy a good many subs and probably will buy a few more? I do think DIY is still the cheaper rout if you retain some of your past gear and tools though. I mean why figure it from scratch if our/your reality isn't the case? Is there truly a sub/driver that you can think of that would slay the urge to build or buy another? As good as the ?? sub/driver is for whatever amount of $$, would it do the trick? If so, then I can certainly understand your reasoning.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 682
3/8/08 at 7:57am
DIY to me has nothing to do with any savings. It has more to do with building a sub or series of subs that will outperform commercial (always size limited and size limitations always = performance limitations,no matter how you slice it).

In fact my latest DIY I am building now will cost me more than most commecial subs. But the performance is all worth the trouble (labour...hours and hours of labour).
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 682
3/8/08 at 12:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinculum View Post

I'm not getting this.

Just throwing arbitrary numbers around.. If you NEED to move the cone XX mm in the bottom octave to be useful, why would you not want a lower Q (say .577) and do it with 1000 watts instead of 4000 watts in a higher q (.707) and adding more power compression? Is a HP really necessary instead of calculating the proper amount of power to use as a maximum or doing an EQ shelf cut? I dont believe people with smaller IBs (2x18) are using high pass filters yet they have the ultimate large box. You either make it hard to move the cone down low (small box) and squeeze your amps to make it happen, or ease up on the job and watch where you walk.

What am i missing? fill me in!

Speaking of IBs, Isn't it silly how IBs are the greatest thing since sliced bread, yet the same # of drivers in a sealed config is looked upon as lesser. They both move the same amount of air...

Thanx,
Dr V

Assuming you have high power handling drivers (which you do):

Using your example, you would be giving up 6dB above F3.

Lowering the power plant's potential is the same as utilizing a HP filter in that both are a means to protect the driver from over excursion below F3 in a bigger box. One method carries the price of poorer group delay and transient response by loss of extension. The other reduces headroom above F3 by 6dB in your example, which is actually fairly close to reality in the case of a driver compliment that will handle 4KW peaks.

A sealed box of the proper size will:

1. Protect against over excursion below F3.
2. a) Lower certain non linear distortions because the trapped air becomes the dominant restorative force.
2. b) In a push-pull configuration, reduce (H2 or H3 or both, depending on your school of thought and/or test results) harmonic distortions.
3. Allow use of a power plant that maximizes output potential across the entire spectrum of the sub's capability.

With the L/T, acoustic system Q is also irrelevant. Consider this: If your box is modeled to restrict excursion to 80% of X-max for a given power plant, your Qtc may well be higher than .707. This yields a hump at the knee. When you properly design the L/T to flatten the response, your EQ curve, which is a mirror of response, will apply a cut at the knee before it begins to boost the signal below that point.

2dB free lunch at the bottom end of the music range.

You can then, obviously, shape the input signal to result in any anechoic system Q you prefer, or, as is the case with The Marchand Bassis, dial in an infinite combination of anechoic system Q and F3.

In the case of my own designs, I have pre selected anechoic F3 and Q options that are employed by 3 position switches, similar to Mr. Ding's user controlled F3/Q.

The only caveat is that available Q options is proportional to the amount of boost applied.

I'd also like to mention that the popular phrase that 'Bass is all about moving air' is an incomplete thought. Mutual coupling, placement against a wall, placement in a corner, acoustic coupling with a horn, etc., all increase bass output without increasing displacement.

Yes, it is silly that IB is said to be superior to any other sealed configuration. The major difference is that the IB reverts to the driver suspension as the sole restorative force vs a small sealed sub which replaces the mechanical restorative force with a cushion of trapped air (though not entirely). The IB has a much larger potential to create sympathetic vibrations (which many mistake as being audibly a good thing). Corner loading is predominant with a sealed sub and not an option with IB.

The evidence would indicate that the sealed box can have less non linear distortion, better transient response and offer less sympathetic vibration, which boils down to less colored in-room reproduction.

Bosso
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 682
3/8/08 at 1:53pm
Quote:


The other reduces headroom above F3 by 6dB in your example,

This is true to a point. Although a same like 15" has a big advantage over a same like 12", many of us don't utilize it's full potential by introducing HP because of your reasoning. If we did throw the max juice it's way, we would be looking at problems if pushed to far. That being said, still quite a advantage over a 12" set up the same way though.

I love it when you talk Sealed Bosso. After my next project, I intend to do another sealed. The BASSIS is getting lonely, I could use your help in dialing it in when the time comes.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 682
3/8/08 at 2:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

Assuming you have high power handling drivers (which you do):

Using your example, you would be giving up 6dB above F3.

Lowering the power plant's potential is the same as utilizing a HP filter in that both are a means to protect the driver from over excursion below F3 in a bigger box. One method carries the price of poorer group delay and transient response by loss of extension. The other reduces headroom above F3 by 6dB in your example, which is actually fairly close to reality in the case of a driver compliment that will handle 4KW peaks.

A sealed box of the proper size will:

1. Protect against over excursion below F3.
2. a) Lower certain non linear distortions because the trapped air becomes the dominant restorative force.
2. b) In a push-pull configuration, reduce (H2 or H3 or both, depending on your school of thought and/or test results) harmonic distortions.
3. Allow use of a power plant that maximizes output potential across the entire spectrum of the sub's capability.

With the L/T, acoustic system Q is also irrelevant. Consider this: If your box is modeled to restrict excursion to 80% of X-max for a given power plant, your Qtc may well be higher than .707. This yields a hump at the knee. When you properly design the L/T to flatten the response, your EQ curve, which is a mirror of response, will apply a cut at the knee before it begins to boost the signal below that point.

2dB free lunch at the bottom end of the music range.

You can then, obviously, shape the input signal to result in any anechoic system Q you prefer, or, as is the case with The Marchand Bassis, dial in an infinite combination of anechoic system Q and F3.

In the case of my own designs, I have pre selected anechoic F3 and Q options that are employed by 3 position switches, similar to Mr. Ding's user controlled F3/Q.

The only caveat is that available Q options is proportional to the amount of boost applied.

I'd also like to mention that the popular phrase that 'Bass is all about moving air' is an incomplete thought. Mutual coupling, placement against a wall, placement in a corner, acoustic coupling with a horn, etc., all increase bass output without increasing displacement.

Yes, it is silly that IB is said to be superior to any other sealed configuration. The major difference is that the IB reverts to the driver suspension as the sole restorative force vs a small sealed sub which replaces the mechanical restorative force with a cushion of trapped air (though not entirely). The IB has a much larger potential to create sympathetic vibrations (which many mistake as being audibly a good thing). Corner loading is predominant with a sealed sub and not an option with IB.

The evidence would indicate that the sealed box can have less non linear distortion, better transient response and offer less sympathetic vibration, which boils down to less colored in-room reproduction.

Bosso

See, I love this guy^^. Imagine having all that knowledge. He always explains everything very clearly and in a way that can only come from having a profound understanding.

Thanks for sharing with us Bosso.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 682
3/8/08 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post


I'd also like to mention that the popular phrase that 'Bass is all about moving air' is an incomplete thought. Mutual coupling, placement against a wall, placement in a corner, acoustic coupling with a horn, etc., all increase bass output without increasing displacement.

Yes, it is silly that IB is said to be superior to any other sealed configuration. The major difference is that the IB reverts to the driver suspension as the sole restorative force vs a small sealed sub which replaces the mechanical restorative force with a cushion of trapped air (though not entirely). The IB has a much larger potential to create sympathetic vibrations (which many mistake as being audibly a good thing). Corner loading is predominant with a sealed sub and not an option with IB.

The evidence would indicate that the sealed box can have less non linear distortion, better transient response and offer less sympathetic vibration, which boils down to less colored in-room reproduction.

Bosso


Good points made.



Bass is about moving air,you can displace 50 gallons in one array and have another one out of phase (180 opposite) and have not much output.

IB subs do not have to deal with the classic sealed/ported box compression.This leads many to believe it will automatically sound better,as you said there is no more air spring to help the spider(s) suspension.

For sealed boxes you need very capable drivers(like the Tumult,LMS-5400)to work well as they can displace alot of air and have the needed motor (BL) to overcome the internal pressure when reproducing very deep bass and not be affected by compression like a driver with a low BL.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 682
3/8/08 at 6:27pm
DIY is still far ahead of commercial in regards to performance per dollar, no contest, case closed. If you're going to take that fellow's subjective impressions of performance as gospel, you're probably in the wrong section for a variety of reasons.

As for the observation that sealed subs dominate Ilkka's top 10 CEA performance list, it's because he only tested one DIY ported sub using a high excursion driver vs six sealed, and two of those sealed were using two drivers. The only sealed options that beat out the ported TC2k were the two dual driver subs and the sealed LMS18. As you can also see from his list, the PR'd LMS handily beat out the sealed implementation using the same driver. A reflex design (whether ported or PR'd) will always offer more performance than sealed.

Since this discussion is about price per performance, keep in mind that ports will always be cheaper than a PR, and that two of the ported TC2ks would have outperformed the sealed LMS with performance and a lot of money left to spare.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 682
3/8/08 at 7:06pm
Steve,

There is no doubt ,and tests prove it.The ported beats sealed in output down low using the same driver. Only logical, the port/PR adds so much and the sealed cannot match.

I like a well done sealed sub,do get me wrong.The same driver in a ported will outperform the sealed,where it counts for a sub...



Commercial subs...this is the DIY section and no matter who tries will not convince me one bit well executed DIY loses in output per dollar.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 682
3/9/08 at 8:16am
Bosso,

That was exactly the type of reply I was looking for! ThANX.

And yes, I know its alot more than just moving air. But it is one thing thats very important at subsonic frequencies. The other thing is thats important is that you look at the subwoofer system as a system, not just on a per driver basis.

My research goes on... Sealed intrigues me because of all the positive feedback i read on IB forums and Seaton's forum is full of happy Submersive users. Not to mention he has a high end 2x18 Submersive in the works. If i go sealed and its not enough low end, I always have the room to add 2 more. Cost isn't as important to me as the quality of the sound, so I really don't follow cost analysis arguments. On the other hand, I could build the 20 cubic foot, 10" port monsters and plug the port if i desire! I gotta Sh*T or get off the pot, i know!

I still don't have amps or wood yet. I just know TheEar is going to beat me to be the first to hear the 18" ACPs!!

Oh, I just thought of this...I bet you are the customer Carlos was referring to who wants to hit 8Hz!

Dr V
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 682
3/9/08 at 10:28am
I would love to see carlos and wiggins design an XBL2 super tooled woofer! Maybe some friendlier parameters, greater xmax (35-40mm) greater xmech (55-60mm) and a lower fs around 20Hz, I'd trade a little of that efficiency for it. Yet with all the amazingly engineered elements of the acoupower drivers, neo magnets, 6" voice coils, MASSIVE heatsinks ect.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 682
3/9/08 at 11:35am
There can be many costs associated with integrating an audio system into a room besides the individual components.

The other "costs" as a designer I would factor in when choosing a large ported design vs a more expensive sealed:

-The cost of designing and constructing the theater room to hide a gigantic subwoofer, and the subsequent space lost to accomodate it, depending on whether you choose to hide it or not. Not to mention hoping the limited placement options for said large sub jive with where the subwoofer "should" go acoustically as opposed to trying to deal with where it "can" go physically. Sometimes tough or even impossible, especially if you aren't even 100% sure the sub is going to do what your computer told you it would, like many new to DIY'ers.

-The prospect of explaining to everyone that comes over to your house to visit why you have giant boxes or missle silos in your living room while your spouse sits there feeling like they married a tin-hat wearing weirdo, since they probably don't get it(or really want to either). I just don't see it being an easy road to go down with your spouse or whoever. I would consider this a cost in the long run should you go this route.

-Having to replace/repair damaged drivers because you made a little mistake in your design or turned a knob a little too far. I prefer a design that inherently protects the drivers.

Sure large ported may be the best way to stretch a buck, but at what real cost? Do they actually sound better? Or is the hat being hung entirely on "more output for less money"? And how does that great big box of inexpensive performance on paper translate into practical reality once the design is done? In my experience, most of the time it doesn't.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 682
3/9/08 at 11:54am
With room gain,and you always have room gain ,the sealed performs very well and even with minute EQ boost often it flat down deep below audible range(20Hz). With the sub located close to the rear wall and closer to a corner the room gain is a big player.

Nobody has a system outdoors where room gain is missing.In the real world a gentle slope of a well deigned sealed will be ideal.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 682
3/9/08 at 12:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maine HT View Post

-The cost of designing and constructing the theater room to hide a gigantic subwoofer, and the subsequent space lost to accomodate it, depending on whether you choose to hide it or not. Not to mention hoping the limited placement options for said large sub jive with where the subwoofer "should" go acoustically as opposed to trying to deal with where it "can" go physically. Sometimes tough or even impossible, especially if you aren't even 100% sure the sub is going to do what your computer told you it would, like many new to DIY'ers.

-The prospect of explaining to everyone that comes over to your house to visit why you have giant boxes or missle silos in your living room while your spouse sits there feeling like they married a tin-hat wearing weirdo, since they probably don't get it(or really want to either).

Some of the latest commercial offerings have significant footprints as well, ala Conquest.

I was never a big fan of LLT setups for the reasons you mentioned. They have their advantages though.

But, some people have many commercial subs stacked in the same corner that a "silo" would otherwise occupy. Aesthetics is a whole other topic, very important to me, not to others...
There are factors like dedicated rooms vs. living space, etc. etc.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 682
3/9/08 at 12:57pm
Quote:


As for the observation that sealed subs dominate Ilkka's top 10 CEA performance list...

OK, let me be more specific: Sealed subs will dominate any list 'down low' in any comparison you can conceive of. Below tune, ported subs have no output. The lowest Ilkka's CEA comparisons list goes is 20Hz. The lowest test number for all subs tested is 12.5Hz.

Ilkka's field tests are all cut off at 10Hz.

Quote:


As you can also see from his list, the PR'd LMS handily beat out the sealed implementation using the same driver.

Hmmm. At 12.5Hz the dual 18" PR 'handily' beat the sealed version by 0.7dB. The PR sub is down 11dB from 16Hz to 12.5Hz and the sealed is down 4dB from 16Hz to 12.5Hz. Any guesses as to what happens below 12.5Hz?

Quote:


A reflex design (whether ported or PR'd) will always offer more performance than sealed.

Funny stuff.

Down low, up high, TR, GD, size, placement options, response options, system Q options, etc. There is a reason that there was only 1-300 liter ported subwoofer tested. It correctly reflects the market for such a contraption.

Quote:


The ported beats sealed in output down low using the same driver.

Let's see a comparo using the ACP-18". Show the modeled comparison numbers from 3Hz-15Hz in dBSPL and list the size of the ported version's box and pipe. Remember, if you have adequate power, you'll need to attenuate the ported subs output below tune, so show that adjustment in your numbers, or simply use a power plant that keeps excursion under X-mech.

"Down low" is not an arbitrary term. For years 20Hz was the benchmark for 'down low'. It has been that way since the consumer and pro audio electronics industries were founded by the Flintstones.

Recently, some have begun to realize the mistake in this benchmark and have attempted to create a new benchmark a fraction of an octave lower by building ever larger ported subs with ever larger pipes.

Holman's 3Hz-120Hz has been the true benchmark for a decade, and has progressed to a lossless format, yet everyone seems content to consider 'down low' to mean 15Hz.

Show me an in-room graph (or present any evidence) of a ported sub that meets the Dolby LFE spec. I already have done so with a sealed system.

Bosso
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 682
3/9/08 at 4:52pm
Bosso,

Reproducing near DC with the classic(piston)drivers is pointless and a waste of money. No matter how you slice it,get a FAN sub. This single unit moves more air an army of your sealed subs will. And I am sure the team that designed the fan sub can improve on it and offer larger diameter ones,only leaving in further proverbial dust sealed.

Yes a sub capable(tuned at 15Hz is A ok) with quite linear output down to 15Hz with maintained output up to Xmax (or thermal,what comes first) the ported is a better choice.

Tell at what SPL measured GP can a sealed spit @ 8Hz? Pretty poor,unless using a good few very capable drivers(the sub will be BIG,very heavy and need its own dedicated power lines,many).

The BS sound effects in movies will have content to DC..and so what? Who cares...for those who do FAN subs will beat in output anything a sealed can muster(save for multiples of large drivers driven by very capable amps)...not too practical.

People should worry more about the mains they have,as I see so many capable subs mated to inefficient and under performing mains that cannot keep up.

Lets worry about 15Hz-30KHz first and get it right. The output near DC need is like having a goal of eating 50 hot dogs at an all you can eat contest and looking good doing so


Only JL Audio sticks to the sealed aproach for obvious reasons. Tiny box with monster drivers and monster amp...with no space to even fit monster PR's. It works great,I have three JL subs. But you cannot ask for high output below 16Hz as the cone travel is almost good to knock people in the first row out.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 682
3/9/08 at 7:44pm
So, does that mean you won't show the comparo?

"Pointless...waste of money...who cares...people should...BS effects...three JL subs...Pretty poor unless going with a few capable drivers...

Got it.

Bosso
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 682
3/9/08 at 8:20pm
Taking words right and left and arranging them to your liking...very persuasive !

If sealed was the better more effective choice you would not see so many ported subs.

It was shown in tests over and over that ported subs will best a sealed unit each time in output down to the tuning point. As with larger EBS subs tuning freq. can be low.

Now rearrange this one.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 682
3/9/08 at 8:23pm
You guys are cracking me up!
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 682
3/9/08 at 8:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayhem13 View Post

You guys are cracking me up!

You bet,this is just a thread about some air pumps and some people blow a pressure valve (was it sealed off ?) ! Maybe if they used ports and PR's the pressure would not reach critical...even better IB !
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 682
3/9/08 at 8:51pm
Bosso, how are you getting your tumults to get solid output to 3Hz? I can't even do that in a car, let alone a HT. Sure, you have 8 of them, that helps, are you sealing off a small room or something? Could you clarify on a few things, because you can come off as pretty snobbish in your posts, this is prolly just the internet, I am sure we could get along fine in normal conversation. From what I have gathered, and PLEASE correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that...
1. You don't waste your time with subs that don't do the full 3Hz-120Hz dolby lfe spec.
2. You don't waste your time with subs that are big, saying that people don't want them in their HT's
3. IB's are inferior because they rely on the suspension to restore the cone to center position
4. IB's are bad because they can cause the drivers to bottom if you were to power them with enough power to take advantage of them
5. LLT's are bad because they provide no output below tuning and are big
6. High powered amps do not cause very adverse affects with subs, you can power a beefy sub with lots of power in a small sealed alignment and the benefits of such a setup outweigh the problems of an LLT or IB


Perhaps if you could clarify some of this, I could move on to some of the touchier subjects.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 682
3/9/08 at 8:55pm
I don't know a lot about all the theory here but it would make sense to me to make use of some of the pressure created inside the box. Can i build a better sub for less money than a commercial sub, i would think so if labor and tools aren't considered as costs. In the less than $500 price point, i doubt it but above that and it starts to go in the DIY favor. As in all engineering, the best designs are always the most efficient at the task at hand.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 682
3/9/08 at 8:59pm
Actually, you can do some CRAZY stuff in the sub $500 price point, get an A500 for $180 and an MJ18 and you'd be amazed at what can happen, think over 120dB's at 30Hz and up in room for a music sub, 115dB from 20Hz on up in room for a HT sub, $350 can create quite a MONSTER!
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 682
3/9/08 at 11:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEAR View Post

Bosso,

Reproducing near DC with the classic(piston)driv........snip for size......to knock people in the first row out.

That was a really good post Ear. Very logical.

The Dolby LFE spec isn't meant to be taken literally. The 3 Hz is the outside spec. Like speakers speced to 25 kHz. All kinds of content up there right?

Producers make movies to sound good in theaters . They don't get crazy developing a soundtrack that wont be heard. There are precious few movies with meaningful content under 20 Hz let alone under 10 Hz.

I'm not going to triple my budget to hear mike clicks or a pallet falling off-stage.

I just realized this thread was a commercial vs diy and turned into a sealed vs ported debate. I like them both. I just like subs. Heh, we do love to argue.

Carry on.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 682
3/10/08 at 2:48am
This is the same weak argument bosso always falls back on. A large ported will dominate in performance compared to sealed from ~100hz down to a some point below tuning. The 270 liters TC2k was tuned to 16.5hz, yet it is still pumping out more clean output than the sealed TC2k at 12.5hz. His CEA measurements didn't go below 12.5hz, but it would be safe to say that the clean output advantage between the two changed hands around 10hz, a point at which both subs are rolled off qite a bit. So in the case of a real LLT tuned to say 13hz, it's going to deliver more clean output down to ~8hz.

So on one hand we have a design that dominates in low distortion output, frequency response linearity, and maximum raw output from ~100hz down to ~10hz on average, vs one that is dominated from ~100hz down to ~10hz and then becomes better because it can pump out more clean output with less transient response degredation in the single digits. Oh, and keep in mind that:

1) in that range it becomes better, output is already rolled off 20db or more
2) hearing sensitivity decreases exponentially as frequency decreases
3) below 10hz, you'll be fighting your electronics to maintain a linear FR

So which is more important? You be the judge



Maine HT, thanks for that post, I needed a chuckle this morning. Nothing pains me more than the "cost" of having to explain why I have a missle silo in my HT to my freinds.....I stay up late at night crying in my pillow after they leave, ashamed from it all
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 682
3/10/08 at 6:22am
You must not have a wife that cares about what your house looks like or it would probably make more sense to you. My point, that was blown off by you even though it is a reality for most, was what good is a giant subwoofers performance if you can't put it anywhere, either because it won't fit or because it looks rediculous?

Or is this one of those "same weak arguments" you don't want to hear about? Well sometimes I don't want to hear it either, but I have too because 99% of my clients don't want to see equipment, not matter what the performance level is.

Speaking of chuckles, I saw the pics of your setup and it looks like a Circuit City clearance rack. Tbh, I would probably be more embarrassed about showing my friends that amature night mess then the toy missle silo subwoofer you have. But it certainly explains why having a giant eyesore sub in your living room isn't a problem for you.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 682
3/10/08 at 6:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tack View Post

That was a really good post Ear. Very logical.

The Dolby LFE spec isn't meant to be taken literally. The 3 Hz is the outside spec. Like speakers speced to 25 kHz. All kinds of content up there right?

Producers make movies to sound good in theaters . They don't get crazy developing a soundtrack that wont be heard. There are precious few movies with meaningful content under 20 Hz let alone under 10 Hz.

I'm not going to triple my budget to hear mike clicks or a pallet falling off-stage.

I just realized this thread was a commercial vs diy and turned into a sealed vs ported debate. I like them both. I just like subs. Heh, we do love to argue.

Carry on.

You know...

It is all fun and games,and can be done with sealed. Reproducing near DC that is,problem is you need an army of capable drivers to do so. And the main attaraction of sealed is you do not have to deal with ports and what artifacts they may bring plus have the air spring that is a big plus as it serves as a "natural" recall for the driver so to speak.And a sealed sub can be very compact with surprising extension and output.

I can see Bosso's points here,they are obvious.

But this was about COMMERCIAL vs DIY,and has turned into a ported vs sealed debate.

And as Steve said...

"2) hearing sensitivity decreases exponentially as frequency decreases "

Voila,so your 110dB @ 8Hz becomes low output and does not matter that much,you need above the 125dB range to be of real worth.Try getting 125dB @ 8Hz...not evn 4Hz here. WOuld be a waste of traditional sub's displacement. Again, get a fan subwoofer,it stil is economical even at its asking price.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 682
3/10/08 at 7:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maine HT View Post

You must not have a wife that cares about what your house looks like or it would probably make more sense to you. My point, that was blown off by you even though it is a reality for most, was what good is a giant subwoofers performance if you can't put it anywhere, either because it won't fit or because it looks rediculous?

Or is this one of those "same weak arguments" you don't want to hear about? Well sometimes I don't want to hear it either, but I have too because 99% of my clients don't want to see equipment, not matter what the performance level is.

Speaking of chuckles, I saw the pics of your setup and it looks like a Circuit City clearance rack. Tbh, I would probably be more embarrassed about showing my friends that amature night mess then the toy missle silo subwoofer you have. But it certainly explains why having a giant eyesore sub in your living room isn't a problem for you.


Oh snap!

Sounds like a Bose salesman to me. Lets put everything in one neat little box and make the speakers as small as possible so the wife or the anal-retentive husband will be happy...
Seriously; is the the home decorator forum or the audio/video forum?



edit- ok, he could probably clean up the wires a little bit, and the TV is a tad small, but other than that I'd have no complaints.
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 682
3/10/08 at 8:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maine HT View Post

Speaking of chuckles, I saw the pics of your setup and it looks like a Circuit City clearance rack. Tbh, I would probably be more embarrassed about showing my friends that amature night mess then the toy missle silo subwoofer you have. But it certainly explains why having a giant eyesore sub in your living room isn't a problem for you.

Classy.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › late night thoughts about DIY vs Comercial