or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Sealed: 18" TC Sounds LMS 5400 vs. Pro 5100
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sealed: 18" TC Sounds LMS 5400 vs. Pro 5100 - Page 3

post #61 of 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post


Red is max SPL of 5100 in 4cuft enclosure. Blue is max SPL of 5400 in 4cuft enclosure.
Based on giving each how much power? That cannot be the displacment limited output difference, as that is only 2db, and your graph is showing 3-4
post #62 of 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Funky Waves View Post
Based on giving each how much power? That cannot be the displacment limited output difference, as that is only 2db, and your graph is showing 3-4
2000w to the 5400, 1000w to the 5100.

With the same power, they model nearly identical, maybe 1db different at the most in favor of the 5400 up to around 45 hz. After 45hz, the 5100 passes it by 3db at 100hz.

Same power to each. 1000w to each driver.



They're both great drivers, just choose where you want your response to be. Personally, I feed a lot more than 1000w to each of my drivers
post #63 of 405
Thread Starter 
I dunno, the 5100 is looking more and more appealing to me.
post #64 of 405
In the great world of audio power we know that 3dB requires double to power. That means 4000W vs 2000W.

We also know that +2dB difference is not all that special in the real world. This is the where $$$ exponentially increase to gain that small amount of dB

It a strange hobby when we consider spending $800 vs $400 for +2dB
post #65 of 405
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

In the great world of audio power we know that 3dB requires double to power. That means 4000W vs 2000W.

We also know that +2dB difference is not all that special in the real world. This is the where $$$ exponentially increase to gain that small amount of dB

It a strange hobby when we consider spending $800 vs $400 for +2dB

So true.

Might need another power plant with a direct feed soon.
post #66 of 405
This thread has me thinking about buying 5100s and selling the 5400s.

I still do not have enough circuits to drive two 5400s but I would not have to worry about with the 5100.

Im going back through my "stuff" to find out how I modelled the 5100 and thought it was not the right choice for a sealed 3.5cf design.
post #67 of 405
Thread Starter 
I am a bit perplexed myself. I was when I started this thread and maybe now ever more so.

Kyle mentioned the steeper rolloff, but that does not appear to be evident here.

I agree, why not save the money in amps and electricity and run the more efficient (and easier to work with) 5100s instead?
post #68 of 405
Because they do not have the power handling capacity of the 5400 =] And judging by the surround, they don't seem to be as suited for massive LFE duty like most HT subs.
post #69 of 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post

Because they do not have the power handling capacity of the 5400 =] And judging by the surround, they don't seem to be as suited for massive LFE duty like most HT subs.


I have not model them so I have not seen the excursion but they have decent Xmax added to that high sensitivity.

The LFE duty according to the charts is a 2dB difference (I know your chart shows 3dB). Not a meaningful enough of difference on the audibility scale at 20Hz. 107dB vs 109dB is not enough difference when one is HALF the power requirements. The fact that its HALF the power requirements is very important.


Hmmmm.....
Scale it up to 8 of them and you are saving $$$ on circuits/amps and you have STILL more then enough headroom...seems you should have bought 8 5100s
post #70 of 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post

Because they do not have the power handling capacity of the 5400 =] And judging by the surround, they don't seem to be as suited for massive LFE duty like most HT subs.

Dont judge a speaker by its surround, lol. It lives up to its 38mm XMech.
post #71 of 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

I have not model them so I have not seen the excursion but they have decent Xmax added to that high sensitivity.

The LFE duty according to the charts is a 2dB difference (I know your chart shows 3dB). Not a meaningful enough of difference on the audibility scale at 20Hz. 107dB vs 109dB is not enough difference when one is HALF the power requirements. The fact that its HALF the power requirements is very important.


Hmmmm.....
Scale it up to 8 of them and you are saving $$$ on circuits/amps and you have STILL more then enough headroom...seems you should have bought 8 5100s

The sensitivity difference of 3db begins at around 100hz. I posted graphs in this thread illustrating that there is no benefit to running one sub or the other much below 50-60 hz if you feed them both the same power. However, the 5400 will take double the power of the 5100, allowing more output per driver. The 5400 also has a larger spider and a surround designed to take a bit more high excursion abuse. If I was to run 5100s, I would be power limited at this point, and I would be worried about damaging the drivers.

The 5100s are pro sound drivers. If all I listened to was music, I would have purchased them. However, the 5400 is better suited for HT duty. At the same price, you can get more output from a 5400. Below 60hz, there really is no worthwhile efficiency gain to be had with the 5100.

Max output: 5400 has the edge (5100 in red)


Sensitivity: for HT use, there is no benefit to be found (5100 in dark blue)
post #72 of 405
Thread Starter 
It still seems worth it to me if you are running multiples.
The amp/power savings can be a big plus.

I like to plan my systems around using 50% or less of the capacity. So, a couple of db off the top is not bad when using a few kw less ampage is a nice tradeoff.
post #73 of 405
Multiples is the key, especially with this one. Run duals or quad of this one. Oh my!

I am more and more interested in this one than the LMS-Ultra for some reason. I dunno why. The LMS-U is pure driver porn, just looking at it. I've never heard one but everyone says how fantastic they are.

Although Kyle recommends the LMS for what we do.
post #74 of 405
They are both a couple of the best sub drivers available, and the LMS5400 is the best choice for many applications, but the 5100 should not be overlooked, as it does have some advantages, and for some would be the better choice.
post #75 of 405
Yep, subjective


It would be interesting to hear the two drivers, loaded in small sealed subs, with identical resultant alignments, side by side for tonal comparison. A scenario whereby the actual tonal characteristics would be in full evidence when driven at or near their limits. Obviously, the operational drive levels that would be governed by the thermal limits of the 5100. The drive voltage could be backed off somewhat, maybe 2-3db for additional thermal stability. EQ/LT both systems flat and either minimize the impact of the room, or conduct this test outdoors. Now if the room is well mannered wrt modal behavior, and it allows for a decent system representation, go for it.


At this point the tonal characteristics of the two should be able to be delineated. Everything from their different motor structures, and Bl curves, their much different suspensions, cone shape and material, and perhaps their compression behavior, either magnetic or thermal, would differentiate the two. And ultimately, the sum total of all the distortions above, and their over-all self noise, then one could get a good idea side by side and would determine their ultimate sound. Then, one could determine the difference and attempt to attribute a relative subjective difference in character between two of the finest LF transducers in the world.


As well as the above, small sealed alignment, limited by thermal constraints. One could attempt to perform the same tests in an IB alignment, and allow excursion to be the final limiting factor. Comparing the two alignments, small sealed and IB, where the limits are likely different.


Nathan, have you, or anyone for that matter, ever performed anything like this? Not IB, just some measure of a side by side? Would the suspension differences change the over-all sound at the drivers limits? If you EQ'd them at 75db, how significant would their tonal characteristics be at other operational levels? I know Bosso posts that we listen to the FR of a system. EQ them identical, then they sound identical. However, what's always bothered me is dynamics in general. More specifically, compression effects; to a lesser degree instantaneous magnetic, and a greater degree thermal over time. With radically different motors, equally different suspensions, and some measure of in-equality in the VC/former (2x power handling), I would put forth the supposition that these two would possess different tonality, .... even if EQ'd identically.


Thoughts?

I'm fine with modeling etc., but the totality of it all is the final arbiter.



Thank you
post #76 of 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpmst3 View Post

It still seems worth it to me if you are running multiples.
The amp/power savings can be a big plus.

I like to plan my systems around using 50% or less of the capacity. So, a couple of db off the top is not bad when using a few kw less ampage is a nice tradeoff.

I don't think you looked at the graphs. Below 60hz, there is no real sensitivity difference, you won't be saving anything since you require the SAME power to get the SAME spl.
post #77 of 405
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post

I don't think you looked at the graphs. Below 60hz, there is no real sensitivity difference, you won't be saving anything since you require the SAME power to get the SAME spl.

Ahh, I see.
That is a whole different animal then.
post #78 of 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post

Below 60hz, there really is no worthwhile efficiency gain to be had with the 5100.

I'd like to see a driver in which there was an appreciable efficiency gain to be had down low compared to any other driver in the same-sized (and type!) of enclosure. (Ignoring thermal compression, at least.)

Efficiency down low is effectively determined by the size of the box. Full stop. One needn't run models to confirm the obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post

Sensitivity: for HT use, there is no benefit to be found (5100 in dark blue)

Why not? Why must one cripple her/his system by insisting on crossing over the subs too low? There's nothing wrong with a 120-150Hz subwoofer lowpass in most rooms, given a well-set-up multisub system.

Localization hasn't been an issue for me, though with a single sub and higher highpasses it has been. (Sealed mains that have enough volume displacement to be run full-range without one having to worry about blowing them up perhaps help, too; I've not tried a higher-than-conventional-wisdom subwoofer lowpass with a highpass filter on the mains.

I would suspect the audio fidelity of most systems would improve from the increased upper bass efficiency and impact a quality efficient sub driver (TC 5100, Aura 1808, McCauley 61whatever, B&C or JBL xxx, etc.) with a relatively high lowpass.
post #79 of 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

I'd like to see a driver in which there was an appreciable efficiency gain to be had down low compared to any other driver in the same-sized (and type!) of enclosure. (Ignoring thermal compression, at least.)

Efficiency down low is effectively determined by the size of the box. Full stop. One needn't run models to confirm the obvious.



Why not? Why must one cripple her/his system by insisting on crossing over the subs too low? There's nothing wrong with a 120-150Hz subwoofer lowpass in most rooms, given a well-set-up multisub system.

Localization hasn't been an issue for me, though with a single sub and higher highpasses it has been. (Sealed mains that have enough volume displacement to be run full-range without one having to worry about blowing them up perhaps help, too; I've not tried a higher-than-conventional-wisdom subwoofer lowpass with a highpass filter on the mains.

I would suspect the audio fidelity of most systems would improve from the increased upper bass efficiency and impact a quality efficient sub driver (TC 5100, Aura 1808, McCauley 61whatever, B&C or JBL xxx, etc.) with a relatively high lowpass.

It all depends on what you want in your subs, and what you want in your mains. Why cripple your lows to go with a pro sound driver? =]

Personally, I have 4 fifteens doing duty in my mains. I don't need to raise the xover frequency any. I cross the mains at 80 for HT and 90 for music. The LFE channel goes to the full 120hz for movies. It all depends what you want. If you want a pro sound driver and 100hz+ efficiency, go with a 5100. If you want a sub for the lower frequencies, go for a 5400.

Also, the 5400 has a good power handling advantage below 60hz, as it can handle double the power.
post #80 of 405
Is the 5100 right for me? I have just sold my DTS-10, and want to go all sealed. I liked the mid/upper bass on the DTS-10 for sure. So, I will have 4 sealed 15" Rythmiks stacked on each other in the back of my room. I have two LMS-5400 15" models in sealed enclosures in front of room. I wonder if the 5100's would work to augment the mid/upper bass like the DTS-10 did?
post #81 of 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatawan View Post

Is the 5100 right for me? I have just sold my DTS-10, and want to go all sealed. I liked the mid/upper bass on the DTS-10 for sure. So, I will have 4 sealed 15" Rythmiks stacked on each other in the back of my room. I have two LMS-5400 15" models in sealed enclosures in front of room. I wonder if the 5100's would work to augment the mid/upper bass like the DTS-10 did?


The DTS-10 doesn't have much after 100hz at all iirc.

What are you using for mains?
post #82 of 405
LS6 line arrays
post #83 of 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post

It all depends on what you want in your subs, and what you want in your mains. Why cripple your lows to go with a pro sound driver? =]

Anyone who thinks that using an 18" driver with a rated xmax of 31mm is "crippling [her/his] lows" is, frankly, delusional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post

Personally, I have 4 fifteens doing duty in my mains. I don't need to raise the xover frequency any. I cross the mains at 80 for HT and 90 for music.

How big is your room?

You may in fact find that you can get smoother in-room upper bass response by running your mains full range and crossing your subs higher. Why? More sources working to randomize the upper-bass room modes that destroy bass fidelity in domestic living rooms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post

Also, the 5400 has a good power handling advantage below 60hz, as it can handle double the power.

"Power handling" has always struck me as kind of a stupid thing upon which to base any decision. It also seems like a euphemism for "thermal compression." Which is, of course, distortion.

IMO, pick drivers to meet one's real (or imagined) SPL needs, and then get the power needed to push them there.

Now, let's be clear, I would expect the LMS Ultra (whatever it's now called) to manage heat better than the 5100. Thermal management has always been a comparative weakness of the Aura NRT motors, and various knockoffs thereof. (I wonder if the magnets on TC's variant of the NRT are plated; in Klippel testing the plating has sometimes burned.) While the 5100 has the advantage of a tighter gap (due to the LMS's variable-density coil windings) and better transfer to the top-plate, the LMS has considerably more coil surface area.

As an aside, it would be interesting to see each of these drivers in a 4th order bandpass. I'd model it but I'm at work right now.
post #84 of 405
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Anyone who thinks that using an 18" driver with a rated xmax of 31mm is "crippling [her/his] lows" is, frankly, delusional.


That is funny. (At least I am hoping it was meant to be.)
I think we have all become delusional to a degree.
We all have a case of bass/output creep.
When we all got our start it was with 1/100th of what we have now, and still it is never enough!
post #85 of 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Anyone who thinks that using an 18" driver with a rated xmax of 31mm is "crippling [her/his] lows" is, frankly, delusional.

How big is your room?

You may in fact find that you can get smoother in-room upper bass response by running your mains full range and crossing your subs higher. Why? More sources working to randomize the upper-bass room modes that destroy bass fidelity in domestic living rooms.

"Power handling" has always struck me as kind of a stupid thing upon which to base any decision. It also seems like a euphemism for "thermal compression." Which is, of course, distortion.

IMO, pick drivers to meet one's real (or imagined) SPL needs, and then get the power needed to push them there.

Now, let's be clear, I would expect the LMS Ultra (whatever it's now called) to manage heat better than the 5100. Thermal management has always been a comparative weakness of the Aura NRT motors, and various knockoffs thereof. (I wonder if the magnets on TC's variant of the NRT are plated; in Klippel testing the plating has sometimes burned.) While the 5100 has the advantage of a tighter gap (due to the LMS's variable-density coil windings) and better transfer to the top-plate, the LMS has considerably more coil surface area.


If you want to call me delusional, perhaps you should adjust your tone. There's no need to get hostile or righteous in this thread. As for the crippling the lows comment, there was a bit of implied sarcasm there. Perhaps I should leave a note next time. The LMS 5400 will perform better under 80hz. There really isn't any arguing that. Why give up the 3db of headroom where subwoofers generally most need it?

Each of my LMS 5400 woofers has 2500w of power to it. The 5100s are only rated for 1000. I do max my amps out when very low content comes on during movies. I run things hot. It's a 10k cubic foot room.

Why are you assuming I just picked these random crossover values without doing any testing first? Does it look like I just decided to pull random parts out of my ass and throw them together without any research?

There is no need to stress my mains with low frequency content under 80hz when having 8 18s placed around the room with perfectly flat FR do the job much better. I've experimented with both, and I like it this way. Running your mains in full mode can also cause nulls for other seats that aren't perfectly phase aligned (read: off center).

The LMS 5400 driver will go 3db louder on average under 80hz as long as you have the power available for it. I don't have four circuits to my screen wall just because it was fun running the wire.

There's nothing wrong with the 5100. As I said before, choose the driver based on the application. Just look at the surrounds on the drivers. Which do you think is designed to handle the lower bass demands of HT?
post #86 of 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Anyone who thinks that using an 18" driver with a rated xmax of 31mm is "crippling [her/his] lows" is, frankly, delusional.


I think he meant using 'pro' drivers...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post


How big is your room?

You may in fact find that you can get smoother in-room upper bass response by running your mains full range and crossing your subs higher. Why? More sources working to randomize the upper-bass room modes that destroy bass fidelity in domestic living rooms.

I agree. Plug up the ports on the JBL's and run them full range. That's what I am working on, myself but at a different level. 12 sealed 2226's. Four per channel.
post #87 of 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post

It all depends on what you want in your subs, and what you want in your mains. Why cripple your lows to go with a pro sound driver? =]

Personally, I have 4 fifteens doing duty in my mains. I don't need to raise the xover frequency any. I cross the mains at 80 for HT and 90 for music. The LFE channel goes to the full 120hz for movies. It all depends what you want. If you want a pro sound driver and 100hz+ efficiency, go with a 5100. If you want a sub for the lower frequencies, go for a 5400.

Also, the 5400 has a good power handling advantage below 60hz, as it can handle double the power.


Conclusion, you have little concern about $$$ and you have output WAY beyond normal usage

An expert would recommend 8x5100 over 8x5400 if the head room on both is 30% more then what is used in room only because the $$$ saved from amp/circuit differences is in the thousands already.

What I have learned from this thread is that the 5100 is a one of a kind higher sensitivity driver. > 30mm xmax is LF. just look at ALL other bass designs and see that 99% of them have less Xmax.

What is funny is that I agree in general that "Pro drivers are not LFE choices", anyone that has followed my CHT CS18.2 debate would understand my position on < 20mm Xmax High sensitivity woofers but this is a different pro driver and I would never put it in the same category as the Eminence 18" woofer used in some commercial designs. You definitely are not understanding the specs of the driver if you think 8 of them would not be enough even for your room.

I do believe having just one 4000Watt amp is really, really stupid. Yes, I have 4000Watts and its still stupid to require all that power. I fought against the idea behind it many times.


My mains are at the 50Watt level now (minus my new bass bins, 500Watts there). Im forever search for the 10Hz solution that requires 1000Watts
post #88 of 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post

The LMS 5400 will perform better under 80hz. There really isn't any arguing that. Why give up the 3db of headroom where subwoofers generally most need it?

Sorry your arguement does not hold water when talking about multiple driver solutions. You are not giving up 3dB of head room when you have 8 freaking 18" woofers... What is your max SPL requirement in your room? You only give up headroom if you need that 3dB of headroom. Its overkill however you slice it.

What would 8 5100s put out at 1000Watts in your room?

What would 8 5400s put out at 2000Watts in your room?

Its PURELY a numbers game here and subjective opinion is not going to matter. If the 5100s max output is greater then your requirements then the BEST solution would be the 5100s. Its all about utlimate SQ for X $$$.

Obviously having 8x5400s is an incredible setup, there is not a single person that would question it but from your posts you seem to be saying 8x5100s would not give someone the same incredible peformance. I can not figure out from the numbers how the 8x5400 is better then 8x5100 in terms of REAL world usage. I will give you +3dB....are you really, seriously going to say you are within 3dB @ 10Hz of Max SPL using 8x5400s??
post #89 of 405
Thread Starter 
Exactly, That was my opinion and attraction to the 5100 in the first place.

I would never choose to run a system where I am using the full xmax on ANY driver.

Headroom is king!
post #90 of 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpmst3 View Post

Exactly, That was my opinion and attraction to the 5100 in the first place.

I would never choose to run a system where I am using the full xmax on ANY driver.

Headroom is king!

Actually, headroom is nice but if we really wanted to just get what is needed 4 LMS 5400 would do the job, or 4 5100's for that matter. I am curious, can Notnyt run 2 of his subs rather than 4 and see what it does to the distortion? He would have to turn up his 2 subs 6 db's to equal the power but if it still keeps distortion under 10% then he could just use 2 rather than 4. Of course even if this is the case 4 dual 18's is just much cooler.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Sealed: 18" TC Sounds LMS 5400 vs. Pro 5100