Originally Posted by stgdz
Bosso, is notnyt gaining/losing anything by going with the array setup instead of an opposed setup? He is collocating his subs though.
Also I have talked with scott over at fi, he said to take a look at the Q series woofer and possibly upgrade to the high Qts and inductance ring.
IMO, anyone who thinks 2-front-firing-LMS-18s pumping at 3" peak-to-peak won't rock a box is kidding himself, the weight of the box notwithstanding. As to how much that affects performance vs other choices, no one I'm aware of has explored different configurations to extract maximum in-room performance from the LMS drivers.
I prefer to use configuration and the room to get maximum performance from considerably less expensive, shorter throw drivers, in boxes of less weight and size.
The bottom line here is that using 8-18s makes most of the discussion moot. What notnyt (or anyone else) might be losing in maximum performance, he's more than making up in using that much displacement in big boxes.
For example, there was a comment further back regarding 120dB @ 10 Hz being "reference level". It's not. There is no source I'm aware of that requires 120dB @ 10 Hz @ reference level. More like -10dB below that.
notnyt has 20 times more than he needs at 10 Hz (and 40 times more than the THTs with magnitudes less THD).
I'm with Penn regarding Fi offering a higher Qts driver, but not stating what the Qts is.
But, the bottom line for me is the increase in mounting depth of Fi's longer throw drivers (& the LMS, et al), reduces options for box shape vs other choices when designing dual opposed subs.
I once asked Scott what the inductance ring actually translates to in FR above 70 Hz. He let the other guy (forget his name) answer my e-mail, who asked why I cared what happens above 70 Hz because HE crosses his home subs at 50 Hz.
His credibility dropped a few notches with that answer, and he never answered the question, so I have no comment on the addition of the "inductance ring".