Stereo Integrity's new HT Subwoofer - Page 8

I understand that there are those who are willing to spend thousands more for the last 2%, regardless of whether it is audio or video.

I guess for WAF factor, the big displacement/small box scenario would have a place but even those guys not looking for the cheapest solution; you could run 4x the drivers for the same price. I think the 54's are wicked in their own right, but given the choice between 4 LMS or 16 Daytons, I'd have to say there wouldn't be many sights more menacing than quad quads.

I have dual LMS-U's. Currently considing this approach as well. A small upgrade to 16 SI drivers. I'd really like to hear them side by side before comitting...

More bass from less space. Simple as that.

A 5400 can do the work of roughly two of the other drivers in a box half the size. Note that the monetary costs do not scale with the output returns. Like anything else diminishing returns kick in fast. Not everyone wants 8-16 18" drivers in their space though so some are willing to pay big bucks.

Of course I personally would rather 16 LMS-U's, but I value my marriage... In my case, she doesn't care what I do with my mancave, but she does care about the money I spend doing it.

So, in theory, if I can offload my LMS-U pair to someone more "space limited" for a fair price, a wall-o subs could be a distinct possibility.

I'm back!

Just came across this thread. I read it all. I am sorry I missed all the excitement. I told Josh I purchased a few of these a few weeks back. I actually only wanted to find a cheap replacement for my more than tired drivers in my Definitive Technologies PF1800s. I was not really interested in all the performance issues, I was just looking for something that looked pretty stout and could bolt right in with little added work. I saw the first post on HT shack about these drivers and I was excited. The video of the other drivers in action was more than enough for me to pull the trigger. Well, now it seems that the numbers are in and I might have actually gotten more than I expected. The tests that Josh made seem to have quieted most of the savage beasts. Hey, I bought the 5400's when they were just a picture on a website, and I seem to have done the same thing again. I could go on and on about the Lms's, but the numbers are correct and they do exactly what everyone says. With that said, I am going to trust the numbers that Josh put forth and be happy with my purchase. Also, I paid over $4000.00 for those def techs in about 1995. Thats over $6000.00 in today's money not counting the interest or compounding I lost due to the expense of the original $4000.00. For me, it is no- brainer. For $393.00, I am going to have a vastly improved system-just because it will work again, and maybe get a little better performance because of the 17 years of improved tech that the SI brings to the table. I can't lose here, and I know I and anyone who buys these will be happy campers.

Good luck to all,

Robert
Edited by robertcharles - 12/4/12 at 11:09pm

So are these recommended over the Dayton's?

never mind. i kind of answered it myself with the awesome comparison ability at data-bass

They are pretty close with a slight edge to the SI in overall output capability. To me, it's a bit of a toss up unless you need every little dB possible.

But if you want a sub driver now, get the Dayton. The SI's are still not out yet.

i have a question about this. the inuke 3000 can do 1500 watts each channel into 2 ohms. couldnt you wire four 2ohm H18's as 4 ohms each, then wire them together as 2 ohms for each channel getting about 750 watts to each sub? 4 subs on one inuke 300. seems like that would be enough if the max is 1000 watts right?

Correct...in theory.

Only flaw is the mis-conception that the iNuke can provide a full 3,000 watts. The iNuke3000 was bench tested to put out 2,200 watts RMS. So more like 550 watts per sub in the configuration you mentioned. Still should power the SI's adequately regardless of box configuration. I will defer to an scottsim if you need further detail... :-)
Edited by popalock - 12/6/12 at 10:28am

you think the actual output is lower?

I'm surprised when ever I duck into various subwoofer threads (mostly keep to speaker threads) how often I see people running 2ohms. Isn't this a not so great idea? I'd rather decrease the output and stay at 4ohms. That way I know the amp will run cool, safe, happy, and have full current available during all peaks. I don't know much about amps though, so I'd be happy to be corrected.

Not all amplifiers have such a tough time with 2ohm loads.

Two ohm stereo operation is basically the same as 4 ohm bridged mono. Most pro amps are rated for both. Also, not everyone is using crappy low quality Chinese knockoffs of Lab Gruppen amps made by a company that has very little idea what they're doing.

lol. Well said.

Huh, ok

Oh you mean the "Faith Purchase" 14000's ;)

Very much like Seth to sugarcoat his post.

I am going to follow Josh's recommendation and go easy on 8 of these -- 4 pair of D4, IB, wired up as (4) 4-ohm channels.
Edited by Aaron Smith - 12/6/12 at 11:17am

I'd prefer his response to be coated in caramel and sea salt.

Consider it to be coated in whatever suits your palate Scott!

PIZZA!?!?!!

I vote for bacon; unless there is bacon on the pizza, then I'm fine with that.

Yeah, tell us how you really feel!! Haha. I am proud to say I am still getting great mileage out of mine, and I don't take it easy on it all the time either. I did get in earlier on when the QC issues weren't as big a deal.

Seems like that little bit of extra output down low would really start to compound with multiples right?

Well, no, not really. On a driver to driver basis it will still have the same output advantage. If you are comparing one Dayton to four SI's then... yeah. Obviously.

Four on four the output difference would still be the same.

Ok. That makes sense.

2 of these might make their way into my truck. . . . .

Go on...

and then...

it puts the lotion on its skin. . .