Hey guys...we need a little rallying here... - Page 153

I don't have the data for both to hand, but it shouldn't be far off - it's not like 3 decimal places of accuracy is required. Parnham uses the 2226 with the H290 flare to good effect.

I'll be using my SEOS12 with TD10M below them.

Apollo or no? I also have 2 pairs of TD10M's(non-Apollo) here that I may use with the SEOS12's.

No Apollo and they'll have a TD15S below the 10M.

Lol....... that's a good one.

In a budget situation, I'd take cheaper woofers that only reach down to 60-80hz combined with a modest subwoofer system reaching down to ~25hz ported. The advantages of freeing up your sub-bass from the L/R locations along with freeing up the midbass/midrange driver from using significant excursion is huge.

IME, people typically pursue full range as some sort of "purity quest" where the source is in 2-channel therefore everything should remain 2ch lest the stain of signal processing rear its head. Of course, everything processes the signal post source (source player, preamp, amp, crossover, drivers, box, room, etc).

Suggesting the TD15 line to the budget conscious is a little silly. Something like Bwaslo's value designs combined with a pair of modest flanking subs would be a better choice IMO. This isn't going to get anyone flat to 10hz, but neither will a TD15X.

With all that said, I'm not suggesting there is something terrible about LTD02's TD15X proposal. It would make for a very fine speaker. I just don't think it is prudent to forego a sub unless budget truly dictates that.

I have to agree with coctostan here, and LTD02, I am not 'dog-piling' you.

In small rooms, discrete subwoofers are almost essential if you care about fidelity in reproduction. The possibility of having a completely different LF spectrum for each fullrange speaker is very real in a small room (how important it is to each person is another matter). 2 channel full-range systems are hamstrung by position choices that are likely sub-optimal, unless you have a single listening spot, in which case 1/4 points in 1 or 2 room dims and 1/2 point on z-axis (for woofer only) for 2ch speaker placement (or lots of absorption) would be OK if the listening pos. was well thought out.

I'm sure you guys already know this, though. Outdoors, fullranges are great though, as long as you don't mind a distinct power alley in the LF region. All choices have compromise. That's the rub.

JSS


"It is beluga, it is eighty dollars a portion"

While I think multiple subs have their pros, it's not a perfect solution for a self-designed budget system. It gets pretty convoluted in a budget system, and the more electronics you add, the more you run into possible gain staging or clipping issues.

Nothing that can't be solved with more money/measurement time/equipment/troubleshooting... at what point is "good enough" good enough? It's sad, but even to this day there's no entry level electronic that really does multiple subs "for us". I would love a ~$300 prepro or even receiver with good preouts, that has soundfield management built-in.

Some say that just running multiple subs in parallel is adequate. Maybe it is. I'm not convinced though. I think you need to set up multiple subs manually. And halfway into it i can't be the only one who says "**** it, this is a waste of time".

I recently turned my sub off from my main system. With it running simultaneously alongside the "large" mains, I had pretty good frequency response...butthe reason was because the pro amp fan noise was reducing overall fidelity. Now i'm looking to sell that 2500 watt fan modded amp just so I can use a subwoofer again. it's not as easy as 1,2,3. - I can't add more subs until I get more amps, and I don't really "want" to get more lesser subs that can't keep up with this sub in the ULF, but the amount of subs that can keep up with Mal-X's on ULF can be counted on one finger and ain't cheap... it gives me a headache. I'm honestly 90% content listening to stereo right now. Sure adding the sub fills in some holes in the response, but it's not like the speakers sound boomy or one-notey without a sub/subs. I've got a 9 cu ft sub sitting there... OFF!

I guess what I'm saying is - content below 80hz is limited in quantity and importance. it's nice to have "some sound" down there but the added bass detail of better bass setups may not be worth half your budget. Obviously it's different with LFE, but for music it's just less important. It's not about "purity" - it's about simplicity.
Edited by Eternal Velocity - 7/11/12 at 10:29am

Budget or not, flanking subs aren't any less silly a suggestion if other domestic concerns make them impractical.

Sure, a 12" or 15" Acoustic Elegance driver may not be as budget conscious as other more affordable drivers, but truly budget conscious individuals tend to plan incrementally. Quality drivers in a two-way enclosure (ported/vented/whatever) that can attain a reasonably low f3 of say 40 or 45Hz would simply be money in the bank when, down the road, it came time to integrate a sub. And if that time also meant "freeing up the midbass/midrange driver from using significant excursion," smaller enclosures will be available and no new driver purchases are required as the old ones could simply be reused.

Besides that, not all existing sub-less systems are dictated by budget; as already mentioned, other reasons might also be WAF or living space issues (or a combination of all three). So a more incremental approach, such as suggested above, immediately treats the enthusiast to all the benefits of the SEOS waveguide, as well as high-quality sound with reasonable extension in a simple form factor. The only penalty is the LFE that they aren't missing because they never had it to begin with.

+1

As the population increases and the world grows more crowded, floor space and power will come at a growing premium. The simple and efficient two-way speaker system isn't going anywhere.

Why would one compromise performance in half of the modal region by only running subs up to 80Hz?

Full range speakers just don't allow for high-fidelity reproduction in the modal region. See some of the graphs assembled here of in-room responses for so-called "full range" speakers.

And for LFE, I'm not convinced one needs anything but "loud." Multisubs are far more important for music than flicks.

Because running subs up to 400hz is stupid? Oh wait, 200hz to 400hz isn't important, because you'll say so. Even though that's near the shroeder frequency of most rooms.

Let's say you run em (multi subs) up to 120hz. That's what, half an octave higher than 80hz?

Next you'll be telling me that hearing one person's voice in a room is not high fidelity to their actual voice. - that we need multiple men singing in chorus, placed well away from each other to produce the male voice correctly (but the other two men need a high pass filter on their mouth).

Every time there's a piano in a room, in order for it to actually sound like a piano on the lower keys, we need two more pianos playing the same note. Make sure to muffle harmonics above 150hz.

Same with a Cello. Gotta have three of em to sound like a cello.

A single reproduction source may not measure ideally, but neither would a real human voice or instrument in the same room. Funny how our ears just don't seem to... care. Well, yours apparently do, in sighted listening tests. if you've ever heard a piano in a room, or a human being (not sure how many of those you interact with on a regular basis) you'd realize that chasing extremes like perfectly flat bass is counterintuitive to effective engineering (IE dollar-for-dollar performance gains). Sometimes there are differences, but most of the time we don't hear/notice these so-called non-high-fidelity-reproduction.

Again, for some of us, it's about what we perceive as important. Sound below 100hz is just inconsequential. The half-octave above that is a tiny passband to be investing hundreds of dollars into.

If you can't localize them, why is it stupid?

I say run a multisub system as high as you can (with the mains overlapping) without creating localizability problems. In practice, that'll usually end up with a global lowpass somewhere between 120 and 200 Hz, with perhaps lower corners for subs closer to the listening position. That leads to both smoother in-room response and greater system power headroom.

Yes. A half-octave in which most systems (i.e. "full range" mains or single sub) suck rocks through a straw.

If you wish to act like a fool, that is of course your right.

The differences between an intelligently-executed multisub system and a single-sub solution are so vast that blind testing isn't needed. Blind testing is needed for subtle differences. Anyone can hear the difference between a bass note ringing, vs. a bass note stopping.

Perhaps, but of course the only person prattling on about "perfectly flat bass" except is you. More sensible people are talking primarily about smoothness of response. To the engaged mind, there is a difference in scope between the two.

Those words simply suggest a lack of competence in system setup to me. If you've heard bass done right, you would not spew nonsense.

Geeze louise why dont these people toe in their speakers to reduce first reflections??

I do not think this is fair extrapolation. The techniques for production and reproduction of sound are different.
Besides why should i care how live piano sounds in my room? It certainly will be different from a concet hall.
All i want is that recorded piano is not colored by the room. And if multiple subs get me closer to this goal so be it.
Edited by zheka - 7/11/12 at 6:52pm

Doesn't our brain interpret reflection to be reflections, such that between 100 and 400hz they're inconsequential. Now before that's taken out of context, I understand that the reflection needs to be of similar tonal balance and shouldn't be modal/ring. And I'm not even sure my statement is correct. I just thought I read that somewhere. Don't omnis use this technique. Make the room part of the source.

Where's the builds fellas? We need some speaker pr0n

I'm taking some time off from building my speakers. Building quad sealed subs was a lot harder than I thought. In the meantime I will wait for other builds to pop up and I can have a wider selection to choose from.

We're waiting for you to make some p0rn.

You need to be logged in to the see the uploaded pictures attached to the messages, but Rich has started to play with the SEOS12 plastic units I gave him in the test mule cabinet we were using to evaluate the Econowave stuff:

http://www.audionervosa.com/index.php?topic=4042.0

That test mule started out designed for Eminence Deltalite II 2512 ported (or sealed with low Q like we both like our sealed boxes to be). It was then sectioned off smaller to accomodate the AE TD12X when we discovered just how much better the AE woofers were than the Eminence ones... not sure if we're going to build different boxes for the JBL 2206H woofers I handed to him to play with as well... Rich is pulling the woofer from inside mount to external surface mount so that we can seal up the QSC horn cutout (which also served as the removal hole for when we swapped woofers inside the cabinet) more solidly and cutout for SEOS....

CD is the Radian 475 as that was preferred option... hopefully brush wellman finally get their 1.75" beryllium replacement diaphragms out later this year as I think that would be an ideal high frequency choice to eventually play with... but for now, we'll play with the stock al diaphragm Radian as the CD of choice... we also have B&C DE250 to try on SEOS and see if it works better than it did on the QSC horn that was there originally...

Eventually these will be passive crossover designs... but for initial listening sessions and testing, Rich has a Rane active crossover unit that he's using to allow quick changes and play with some PEQ to simulate notch filters, etc.... its cheaper this way than having to have a bunch of parts to build different passive iterations... I loaned him a 5 channel Butler amp so he's got plenty of good amp power channels to use....

Progress won't move at a super crazy fast pace as I have virtually no time to help out with this because of baby obligations. But hopefully we'll end up with a couple cool options... also, I've agreed to take over some of the AE group buy woofers.. so there will be other 15" woofer options and designs as well eventually...

If Erich would ever get some of the flatpacks ready for us with super bracing (hint! hint! hint! hehehehe), more designs would started get more quickly since it's a pain cutting wood in 110 degree heat... or at least that's what Rich tells me since he's the one doing it while I just encourage from afar and show up to listen to his progress from time to time hehehe... specifically I'm looking for 5 cubic foot for AE TD15M and the 2 cubic foot for the JBL 2206H... although I have a funny feeling several of my stash of 2206H woofers will end up in slanted baffle surround speakers for my theater room like the picture I previously posted about....



but at least one pair of 2206H woofers needs to go to a speaker I'm gifting to someone... so I'm ready for some flat packs to make life easier

Erich, I want some of those JBL 2352 horns you have stashed as well for my own frankenstein project I'm working on until the SEOS 24 fiberglass models are available. Let me know when you can get a pair shipped out to me and a total to paypal you. Thanks!

Did the new boxes pass the difficult Bwaslo inspection? Pictures?

There really hasn't been anyone say what sized enclosures we should be shooting for. I asked a while back, but there were only a few suggestions.....and most were different.

It would really help to get some box volumes and possibly the dimensions.

The new 2 cu ft box id a beast. All I did was add another horizontal brace.

There's a 3.5 cu ft tower speaker in the works right now. They were started yesterday, and will be done tomorrow. 15" wide, 13.5" deep, and 41" tall. Heavily braced using a whole sheet of 3/4" Baltic birch, double thick baffle with the outer baffle made from mdf. I will be getting the CNC company to price these out. The one I'm doing right now is being made from scratch on a table saw.





It would be really......really good if we could figure some box sizes so we can move this project into the next phase. No reason to be debating subwoofers versus 2 channel yet.

Best I can do is speaker part pr0n - and the image quality is no better than a Pam Anderson's home movie.



2226Js, SEOS-12s, and 360s

I'll sit that vote out since (a) my parts combination is unlikely to be "mainstream", from what I've seen so far, and (b) I'm a noob still trying to figure out WinISD to model the enclosure.

First attempt at WinISD - please be gentle - this is for 2226J + SEOS-12/360, and taking the previously suggested advice of coming up with box size that can run ported, or port plugged - 2.5 cu ft?

I am. Freq response over a row of seats, 2 subs, run in parallel, at 1/4 points on the front wall.



JSS

Is this box a box?  I mean is it square?  An angled back version would be awesome, but maybe not for everyone. 

 

Most the volumes I've seen thrown around are between 1.5 and 3.0ft3......  2.0 seems like a safe bet as well as 2.5 IMHO.

 

You could always start a couple polls to see what the masses want and link them here.  That would be much easier than trying to keep a finger on the pulse of desire through this thread IMO.

Agreed. For the smaller box designed for a SEOS and 12" woofer, I'd shoot for 3 cu ft at a minimum. At 2 cu ft, there isn't enough volume left over once the WG is in. Most pro 12" drivers like about 2.5 at a minimum for ported. I modeled 6 different pro 12" drivers and I could come up with good ported solutions for all of them in 2.5 cu ft which is what I'd estimate is left over with a 3 cu ft internal box.

That 3.5cu ft tower sounds like it would work well for 12" drivers too. You might fit some 15" drivers in that size enclosure too, but It would be tight on the width anyway. If you moved it to 16-16.5" wide it might work well for drivers like the TD15M and 2226 along with most 12" pro drivers. Ideally, I'd shoot for 4-5cu ft for a 15" enclosure.

Simple....

1) What box sizes does Bwaslo recommend for the designs he's done so far? Make a box for the Designer series woofer since that is a cheap option and you all seem to think it's very good sounding. Make a box for the Eminence Deltalite II 2512 or whatever other Eminence driver design Bwaslo did that you think is appropriate.

2) I would think there are a lot of folks sitting on the sidelines waiting for the completed designs from these new high end designers. Make boxes for whatever they recommend. I'm sure Dennis and Jeff can tell you the box size and dimensions they recommend for ideal implementaton of their designs. Those obviously are unknown right now and will remain so until they finish their designs.

3) make the 2 cubic foot box option. it's a good size for a lot of different options. double front baffle, flush mounted waveguide. use JBL 2206H as the cutout standard or do a couple common baffles and interchange them if price isn't too much different. or do what you wanted to do and cutout woofer cutouts yourself and folks specify when they order what they want... I'd get the CNC to do a couple options rather than put even more work on your plate....or just live with the imperfect sizing if cutouts are close between JBL, eminence, AE TD12, Deisnger 12, etc.

4) I'm telling you, John has quite a few TD15 based woofers he needs to build to fill the group buy orders. Offering an ideal vented box for them will sell a few. I'm ready to send you funds right now if you build it provided the price and shipping aren't too outrageous. As long as it is reasonable, I'd much rather put a flat pack together than go out and buy a couple 4X8 sheets of MDF and cut it myself... I can, or I can have others do it, but getting the precision of the CNC with enough good braces pre-cut is worth a premium to me. I'm serious and want to buy a pair of cabinets right now. 19 X 30 x 21 with crazy amount of bracing. Where do I click "order"? I'd prefer baltic birch and am willing to pay the premium over MDF... but others may not feel the same. I'm going to have to build a couple stupid big boxes for my crazy huge "frankenstein like" 2 channel project. so eliminating having to build a bunch more for the other things I want to play with is high on my priority list.

5) do a slanted baffle 2 cubic foot box like I've posted pictures about so that the waveguide orientation is like picture I posted. Again, I'll send funds today for a set if it is an even remotely reasonable price inclusive of shipping. I just don't want to build the boxes myself at this point. this one may not be popular.... but just a suggestion...

6) if you want more feedback, post separate polls elsewhere.... not everyone may be reading this thread as it hits 154 pages....

2 channel versus HT is only pertinent in that if all boxes built are to get them small enough so they are tuned to roll stuff off >=80Hz, they're non-starters for anyone wanting two channel setups in all but the smallest rooms that will have room gain to help extend them... I don't know how many folks on here who have already bought the SEOS are interested in strictly HT and want the tiny, high passed boxes... I personally only know one person that would be interested in this... but I've got a dozen other local guys waiting to listen to the stuff I put together to potentially build something on their own for their setups... none of them have subs and none of them want subs (or want to deal with the WAF of subs). They are intrigued by the cost quotient involve here compared to buying something commercial from me.... and I'm trying to encourage them to maximize their dollars spent, even if it means not selling anything to them by exploring these options. Having flatpacks they can order (and seeing what they're like when i get mine) will likely push them over the edge into doing something.