or Connect
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 4

post #91 of 682
Thread Starter 
No flame wars about AV stuff here....

Everyone has a different preference, I built a IB subsystem because having a HUGE box or cylinder doesnt work in my house. Yes they are UGLY to my wife and anyone I have over. Over the years I too have come to wanting NOT to see AV equipment too so I have a full house AV distribution solution and most of the equipment is on an AV closet hidden from everything.

Quote:


Seriously; is the the home decorator forum or the audio/video forum?

It should be both, some of the younger ones will get laid more if they understand that women are not impressed by your stack of AV equipment

You can have great AV and still have taste that suites where we live and what we do No toy missles for me. Just a nice IB that is hidden until I point to it.

BUT....Others can do what they want, its their place and their tastes so lets
not insult personal choices.
post #92 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post


It should be both, some of the younger ones will get laid more if they understand that women are not impressed by your stack of AV equipment

Man! That was my problem in college. I thought I just didn't have what it takes to attract the ladies. All along it was my AV equipment that was turning them off.

Quote:



BUT....Others can do what they want, its their place and their tastes so lets
not insult personal choices.

Agreed.... insulting each other adds no value to the forum.
post #93 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoffstgermaine View Post

Classy.

Yes, really unfortunate. So far this forum has been a welcome oasis from the speaker and subwoofer forums' nastiness. Craig and I were actually civil to each other here

Lets keep it that way.
post #94 of 682
Please people lets not start quoting wars, as this always degenerates into a mess. Plus spitting on someone's gear rack will not solve the DIY vs commercial debate.

One thing is sure, DIY done by people with know how ,bests commercial. DIY done by people with little understanding not following a proven plan can get you a poor performing unit(and a waste of time to boot).
post #95 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by armystud0911 View Post

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.

It usually helps to read the thread. I simply pointed out that Ilkka's tests, though 80% comprised of commercial subs, is dominated by DIY, as is Tom Nousaine's list.

When you mentioned that Tumults and ACPs are too expensive, I listed real world examples of possible DIY subs that cost the same or less than and will out perform the better commercial offerings like PB-13, JL Audio, etc.

Two of the three examples I gave are ported subs.

Steve took exception to my observation of the FACT that Ilkka's tests are dominated by DIY sealed subwoofers by posting his usual (and quite tiresome at this point in his and my history on these boards) rhetoric that ported is better than sealed in a hypothetical situation.

This is fine with me, but elicits a response. Sorry if that doesn't meet with your approval. You win some, you lose some in that regard.

1. I've attempted to build a system that covers the Dolby spec. 'Tack' made some ridiculous statements regarding TH's specification like it was never intended to be utilized (not what TH told me), there are precious few sources that utilize the spec (get real, do I have to list them?) and that the spec, which has now gone lossless is actually a detriment because it only allows for 'mic clicks and dropped pallets'. Ear called it 'BS movie effects'.

To make it clear, I do have a system that covers the spec. I have A/B'd the system with many other more traditional systems using many sources. So, what would you have me do? State the opposite of reality to appease another's opinions? That's not gonna happen.

2. I have said a thousand times over the past 8 years that huge subwoofers are unnecessary, that they limit transient response, that they limit placement options, that they limit tune and Q options, that they increase group delay, that they emit higher driver (and other SC) noise and that they look pretty silly. I have 2- 280L ported 1X18" in my HT. They're finished pretty well, but they still look...well, as big as they are and offer nothing more than any other big ported sub can offer, that is: proportionally higher output across 1 octave and nothing below 10Hz.

3, 4. I've said all along that the claims that IBs are less colored because they have no box coloration is simply not true. ThomasW can attest to my opinions on this subject, which cover the gamut. I've never said they're inferior, just pointed out the +&- for the argument.

5. Correct. The lower the tune, the larger the box and pipe requirements.

6. Correct. People are too obsessed with maximum power models. One of the advantages to a sealed system is that you select the F3 and Q for various sources in various environments. This is not possible with a ported subwoofer of any design. The gobs of power are not used above F3 except for headroom for transients, which don't tax the system at all. They are used below F3 to maintain the desired F3 and system Q and to reproduce music program events as opposed to a continuous sine wave application.

TV has offered commercial ported subs with optional tunes, EQ and HPs and I don't believe there have been any DIY ported attempts at this, so you have to give him credit, but the problem with multiple tune ported subs is obvious in that each time you lower the tune, you restrict port area rather than increase it, and at each tune, your roll off is not optional and rather steep.

There are no such problems with a sealed system. Music program power handling is a walk in the park for drivers like the ACPs and LMSs. I've never had a problem with my system under the most stressful conditions. If I had, I would have mentioned it and addressed it, one way or the other.

I'm not really into posting a bunch of silly opinions. Everything I post is based on models, builds, measurements and listening to the various options.

Steve said "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."

Then Ear agreed with Steve that ported subs will beat sealed down low every time. I asked him to show an example. Instead, he said trying to reproduce to DC is a waste of time.

It was Steve who introduced the 'ported is better than sealed' into this thread, as he always does. This discussion is not about price per performance, it's about DIY vs commercial, which opens it to all aspects under the subject. Steve loves to make it about price per performance as long as he can define the criteria and ignore FR, size, Q, GD, TR, placement options, SC, transients, bottoming the drivers, stored energy, fit and finish and eliminate all subjective discussion, to which I reply...yeah, right.

One guy posted Craig's subjectives list and immediately Steve pisses on him. I find it interesting that Ilkka does strictly objective testing (though Ilk is smart enough to realize the validity of subjective input, he simply doesn't have the time or inclination to do both) and Craig does his own mixture of in-room tests that lean toward subjective criteria, yet:

Both have tested approximately 3 dozen subs. Though they aren't all the same subs, they're close enough by category.
Craig has the PB-13 @ #3 and the JL Audio @ #6 and Ilk has the PB-13 @ #4 and JL Audio @ #8.
Craig's top 10 consists of 6 reflex and 4 sealed and Ilk's has 6 sealed and 4 reflex.
Both of them cut off their tests at 10Hz.
Neither of them include flexibility features in the scoring.
Neither of them discriminate by price.
About the same number of people find either test results preferable and enjoy the hell out the discussions that result.
There is benefit in both of these guy's huge services to the internet audio world. Take them both out of the picture and what do you have, a better situation or a lesser situation?

There are only a small handful who deride one or the other for personal reasons.

Ear's comment about needing 125dB @ 8Hz is typical of the silly remarks that cause me to respond in a 'snobbish' manner. 2 years ago I posted an in-room graph of a single 2X15" showing a fairly flat response and 118dB at 10Hz with a quick sweep. Add 12dB to that with the addition of 3 more 2X15" subs and a few dB to compensate for the lack of accuracy of the QS at 10Hz and what do you come up with?

I've also posted an in-room graph to 2Hz which shows a room gain hump centered @ 5Hz and in-room F3 @ 3.5Hz, so it would appear that the evidence is clear enough.

To think that I should apply a HP filter at 10Hz or that in-room response to 3Hz is useless or otherwise unimportant to accurate reproduction, or that TH never intended his specification to be utilized in all Dolby hardware and software and most every DVD player on the market or that there is no application in source material, just because someone has that opinion, is what it is. A rather empty thought.

Bosso
post #96 of 682
So Bosso do you have a solution that is compact enough (say even 24cu ft external volume)works on even two 15AMP circuits and can reproduce below the 10Hz range at an output matching subs of much smaller size(4-8cu ft) reproducing the audible spectrum (20hz) ?

If you have one I buy one and you have conquered the sub world. Go market your product,in little time you will be standing of a pile of wealth. Not becuause I need one,because you have done what even the well known best sub designers have not !

And I will say yet another time,response in the signgle digits is a grand waste with conventional drivers. The fan sub always comes back and outdisplaces several classic drivers.

And to end this, single digit frequency bass reproduction is WASTED AMP output and DRIVER displacement. Because in the signgle digits me,the next audio guy or YOU do not hear any definition at all. Now prove me wrong.

You know well human hearing is very very insensitive in the signgle digits (frequency). Here the high distortion, lack of accuracy passes very well to human ears.

Then some will ask why known companies will come out subs that are "flat to 10Hz"...MARKETING,there is a need created by movie sound effects cheaply thrown around. There is no big deal to create some rumble or explosion with information near DC. And it creates sales,the sheep simply are happy to stay on top and have accurate reproduction ! LOL

Accurate reproduction of what I ask ? The Orange fireballs in some movie loaded with layer upon layer of effects. What the "director Intended" he did intend to make sure his imagined effects are faker. All these directors intend is to fill pockets with moolah.

Now Bosso tell me I am wrong again, and that there is accuracy near DC and the human hearing will hear nuance.
post #97 of 682
Wow.

While you seem to have a lot of knowledge, "healthy debate" doesn't seem to apply here.

Yell at somebody else. Ill go be silly and ridiculous somewhere else. Later.
post #98 of 682
Yes well until the fan sub drops in price, conventional drivers will always be the way you will see us go. For the price of one fan, you can get an IB with 32 ficar IB18'sAlso, the fan sub is not without issues, I have heard them, while it is a low rpm fan, it still generates more a distracting tone.

Also, bosso, could you describe your system in more detail, how big is your room ect? I know you are driving 8 tumults in small sealed boxes, that is all.
post #99 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by armystud0911 View Post

Yes well until the fan sub drops in price, conventional drivers will always be the way you will see us go. For the price of one fan, you can get an IB with 32 ficar IB18'sAlso, the fan sub is not without issues, I have heard them, while it is a low rpm fan, it still generates more a distracting tone.

Also, bosso, could you describe your system in more detail, how big is your room ect? I know you are driving 8 tumults in small sealed boxes, that is all.

Ah now we talk,of course you can have output near DC,using many capable drivers,in sealed cabinets. As IB also introduces parasitic distortions,walls are not as inert as cabinet walls built for the task. You will say that the walls will still flex and the same issues will arise with sealed,yes they will. Sealed to use the pros of a sealed design,totably the natural protection from overexcursion and better recall of the cone.

Give me 32 18" drivers like LMS-5400 and we have massive output at pretty much any frequency from 80hz down. Even 32 15" CSS SDX15 drivers would be mighty capable in smaller sealed cabinets.
post #100 of 682
Yes, well the problem with that is (at least for me) driving 32LMS's would cost near 50k, 32IB18's would provide slightly less output but would be far cheaper to buy and drive. Also, I don't imagine that the cones are going to have much of an issue returning to the center when they are moving .5mm max at 30Hz. Down deep, it will take longer, however, my entire body is so insensitive to sound pressure down there that I simply can't detect a difference between a small sealed sub and an IB with deep subsonic content. My philosophy is, if I can't notice it, I am not going to design around it, maybe others can, I don't know. I do like subsonic pressure, and I intend for my system to operate in those bands, however, I can't detect distortion down there. In a well designed IB, it is very possible to eliminate the acoustic coupling with the house and prevent the walls from oscillating, ultimately, a good HT should not have walls that move either way.
post #101 of 682
Thread Starter 
I dont know who is right or who is wrong. Sometimes things become pretty subjective in the AV world...imagine that.

In the end are we splitting hairs to get that "last piece" of pefection. I have an IB and its simply incredible, do I know what "better" is...probably not but would I care since its probably something that is incredibly hard to notice.

Also all this talk of 100+ DBs at X hz and so on makes me wonder....who listens too sound at that level for hours on end?

Just some ramblings, I love reading the post from all sides. The details that go into the arguements are amazing. You guys KNOW YOUR S H I T!" and its just a hobby
post #102 of 682
Thread Starter 
Quote:


About the same number of people find either test results preferable and enjoy the hell out the discussions that result.
There is benefit in both of these guy's huge services to the internet audio world. Take them both out of the picture and what do you have, a better situation or a lesser situation?

yep, after you posted the Ilkka link I "wasted" a night reading it

Both have done incredible testing and I think having both rankings as a reference point is awesome, to me it takes the guess work out of any sub research. Kind of like the BCS polls.....Craig can be the "Coaches poll", Ilkka can be the "AP poll" and now we just need a third computer ranking
post #103 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by armystud0911 View Post

Yes, well the problem with that is (at least for me) driving 32LMS's would cost near 50k, 32IB18's would provide slightly less output but would be far cheaper to buy and drive. Also, I don't imagine that the cones are going to have much of an issue returning to the center when they are moving .5mm max at 30Hz. Down deep, it will take longer, however, my entire body is so insensitive to sound pressure down there that I simply can't detect a difference between a small sealed sub and an IB with deep subsonic content. My philosophy is, if I can't notice it, I am not going to design around it, maybe others can, I don't know. I do like subsonic pressure, and I intend for my system to operate in those bands, however, I can't detect distortion down there. In a well designed IB, it is very possible to eliminate the acoustic coupling with the house and prevent the walls from oscillating, ultimately, a good HT should not have walls that move either way.

Anyone can and will notice a very deep rumble that will be felt and move your ear drums. The point,my point of this argument was below the 10hz range and even before human hearing will tolerate even HUGE distortion and non linearities. So the sealed advantage is only good on paper.

It would be great to know what Bosso uses at least his aproach to get there. Creative use of tapered horns can produce MAJOR output down very deep with very little air moved my the driver itself. Case being the Danley DTS20, and we know this sub uses a single 12" that has probably under 18mm Xmax,yet in the tapered horn design it is very efficient. Problem is here...they roll off ...and off steeply.Again a HUGE box would be needed to make a tapered horn design to house say a 15" driver and be capable of good output to even a "high" 8Hz.

The fan sub yet again strikes back,even @ 20K it takes the least space,uses the smallest power amp of all the designs.Its drawback,it is a IB unit and like some noted has awhine when working,constant whine(there are no props that are 100% silent no matter the designers ability to cut thru the air).

Someone once said "It is all about compromise". It is sadly true. No way to only take,you have to give back.
post #104 of 682
Well, it sounds like we are in agreement on this front. Just FYI, danley subs are TAPPED horns, not tapered, all horns are tapered, tapped is a new idea that danley had.
post #105 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by armystud0911 View Post

Well, it sounds like we are in agreement on this front. Just FYI, danley subs are TAPPED horns, not tapered, all horns are tapered, tapped is a new idea that danley had.

Yes tapped horn. My bad, ...mon anglais en saigne.
post #106 of 682
I am building some sono's that I think would best the MFW-15 for cheaper per sub. I am using the Ed 18 inch drivers. They will be tuned to 13.8 hz. I am building 3 of them. Total cost with amp is $1250. Each one cost about $415 to make. They are going behind the screen so I don't care what they look like or how big. Wasn't this thread about why bothering with a DIY when you can get the MFW-15 for $600. Craig did rate the ED A7-900 better than the dual mfw-15 and I will get spl about the same as 2 of the a7-900(minus 3db's but extending much lower). Will they sound as good, I will never know, but I am using the same drivers with better quality amps than the ed's that ranked better.
post #107 of 682
It really isn't hard to beat the MFW for $600, especially not when you don't limit yourself to size. You could build and power a pair of SDX's for that much money, and really be ahead of the MFW pair.
post #108 of 682
Great, I was getting a little nervous.
post #109 of 682
Yeah, you needn't, what makes the MFW so spectacular design wise is its efficiency and 'size, giving great output in a small package for a smaller price with Shifter's usual amazing finishes. These are easily overcome, with diy subs, Mark Seaton has even said that a high performance 12 would equal or best the MFW, what makes the MFW nice is its ability to deliver its performance with its low cost plate amp. I imagine that a shiva in a larger enclosure with a 500 watt plate amp would equal or better the MFW in output and features for less money.
post #110 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

I am building some sono's that I think would best the MFW-15 for cheaper per sub. I am using the Ed 18 inch drivers. They will be tuned to 13.8 hz. I am building 3 of them. Total cost with amp is $1250. Each one cost about $415 to make. They are going behind the screen so I don't care what they look like or how big. Wasn't this thread about why bothering with a DIY when you can get the MFW-15 for $600. Craig did rate the ED A7-900 better than the dual mfw-15 and I will get spl about the same as 2 of the a7-900(minus 3db's but extending much lower). Will they sound as good, I will never know, but I am using the same drivers with better quality amps than the ed's that ranked better.

What amp(s) are you using?
post #111 of 682
Thread Starter 
Quote:


Each one cost about $415 to make. They are going behind the screen so I don't care what they look like or how big. Wasn't this thread about why bothering with a DIY when you can get the MFW-15 for $600.

Your build for one is more then $600, no? 1000W amps are $300 alone so you are over $600 with $415 + amp.

That was my point and the other point was that the footprint on the MFW-15s was more WAF. Im still not sold that anyone can build a speaker for under $600 and really outperform the MFW-15s overall.

There are obviously many factors that go into the subjective definitely of "outperform". IT can not be just SPL can it? Footprint, presentation, controls, WAF all matter in my opinion.

You win SPL for sure but I can say that most people dont listen to any movies at reference level so in real life pratical terms all that extra head room is just never used ( I would love to see data on this too).

I think it would be an interesting case and discussion

One MFW-15 vs a $600 DIY sub build.

Quote:


Craig did rate the ED A7-900 better than the dual mfw-15

big size and price differential so I would expect the ED A7-900 to perform better.
post #112 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

Great, I was getting a little nervous.

Nervous !

The MFW-15 hangs in with the sealed f113 in output,same class(output). Not hard to best with a SDX15 in a ported box. So many options in DUY no commercial will thread with a DIY,unless they have chained up prisoners doing the work(free labour).

The smaller you go the more it costs,look at the Fathom f113,it is a sealed compact unit going toe to toe with larger ported. It costs much more as the driver has to do all the work,has way higher displacement(driver) compared to the AV123 MFW-15 and amp several times more capable(output). Still fun to see all the bass you can extract out of a compact sealed when cost is less restricted.
post #113 of 682
It doesn't have to be that hard, a simple Dayton RSS390HO powered with one of those 240watt plate amps on sale right now would probably hang quite well with the MFW15 in a box the same size for $300.
post #114 of 682
Thread Starter 
Quote:
It doesn't have to be that hard, a simple Dayton RSS390HO powered with one of those 240watt plate amps on sale right now would probably hang quite well with the MFW15 in a box the same size for $300.

Really? even the low end parts? I know DIY subs are good but I never thought the Dayton stuff was very good.
post #115 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by armystud0911 View Post

It doesn't have to be that hard, a simple Dayton RSS390HO powered with one of those 240watt plate amps on sale right now would probably hang quite well with the MFW15 in a box the same size for $300.


It is not about hard,it is about outperforming (SPL) the AV123 by a solid margin. And doing so for less.

These MFW's are looking good,when the craze calms a bit and they ramp up production I may get a triple stack. Just for kicks. I hate ordering and waiting.
post #116 of 682
I doubt the RSS could outperform it by a solid margin, if it all, still with box materials it can be done for around half the price and thats not including shipping and you'll have a very nice performer in the same footprint. That IS saying a lot, especially at this price point.
post #117 of 682
TheEAR...why after reading all your posts I feel like going back to building a sealed box? After going from Sealed to ported and back to sealed in my thought process?

While I know this thread isnt about sealed vs ported... but more about DIY vs comercial... I picked DIY just to make something with my own hands. My design... and just because I can... but my question is people opinion here about sealed vs ported.

After much reading; what do you guys think about two seperate enclosures... both sealed, both using 15" TC2000 drivers.

When we say small... how small are we talking about to still get good low end for HT w/o the need to go ported. I am not into LLT due to size of the actual box itself...

Awsome thread... I just had to ask here while this thread is still hot with a lot of talk of the TC2000 drivers in those charts.

Thanks

EDIT: To add to the above, I feel I have the amp power (Crown XS1200) and a DEQ2496 + DCX2496 and RTA Mic and software. I feel I would be able to tune this setup... so why go ported? Why go sealed?

Can I use one driver sealed and one ported and still make the system sound good?
post #118 of 682
Thread Starter 
yeah, actually shipping doesnt make it $600 any more. Good point.

Okay, back to building my twin TC2Ks

just need a good amp for them. maybe another EP2500...hmmm.
post #119 of 682
I am building 3-6ft tall ed 190v.2 subs. I will be using my Ada MPA-501 5 channel amp which puts out 600 watts per channel into each channel. It will cost me $415 each which includes the cost of the amp(3 channels of it). It equates to $180 for each channel of amplification at 600 watts. I scored on this amp. it retails for $10000 now as the mpa-502. You have to love buying under rated used equipment. My drivers cost me $195 each, and the sonotube, mdf, ports, and binding posts all cost me $130 total. Maybe a little over $430 for each sub including a channel from my 5 channel. $200 cheaper than the MFW-15 and I get an 18 inch driver(not 15), a class A,AB amp that is amazing and much better than the one used in the mfw-15. I use another MPA-501 to power my mains and surrounds. To give an example I shut down a sampson s-2000 with my 2 old subs before(124db's) and then hooked up the Ada and it hit 126 db's and just kept going. I am sure the Ada amp has better sound quality, power, lower distortion, than the plate amp on the mfw-15, I am also using a better sounding driver?(this is debatable I guess).
post #120 of 682
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Ada MPA-501

isnt that an expensive amp?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › late night thoughts about DIY vs Comercial