or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Stereo Integrity's new HT Subwoofer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stereo Integrity's new HT Subwoofer - Page 22

post #631 of 2212
Hahahaha. Ok. Ok. Jury finds the defendant not guilty!

I just figured you would be up close petting each one whispering "my precious...." Under your breath as they were loading them.

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #632 of 2212
LMAO
post #633 of 2212
Astonishing. Austin, whatever you end up doing, I think I should come get some pictures and have a good listen since this project looks like a precedent-setter, whatever you wind up doing with them.
post #634 of 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrodynamic View Post

Still shocked at how everyone at the shop missed that. eek.gif
Looks like I'll be making a trip up there with D2's to swap them out after I get back from CES. Sure we've made a few mistakes on VC config over the past thirteen years but NOTHING of this magnitude. I'm sure this will be on my mind the entire time I'm at CES until I drive up there and make things right. frown.gif
And here I thought he was making of bunch of isobaric subs for the smaller enclosures and wanted D4's since there's twice as many drivers. tongue.gif
post #635 of 2212
Mine came in today. I must say these are the mostly nicely packaged drivers I've ever received. Double boxed, and the styrofoam made especially for the driver is just excellent. Another nice touch is on the outside of the boxes, it has the date the driver was tested.
post #636 of 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpmbc View Post

Mine came in today. I must say these are the mostly nicely packaged drivers I've ever received. Double boxed, and the styrofoam made especially for the driver is just excellent. Another nice touch is on the outside of the boxes, it has the date the driver was tested.]

Ditto.

I cringe to think what would have happened to any of my FI 18's if they would have fallen off the hand truck like 2 of my 8 SI's did yesterday. rolleyes.gif The FedEx guy is a real cool dude and has helped me load in tons of boxes with the utmost of care and concern in the past, but he had a little trouble yesterday wheeling in the boxes. He was going over a little bit of snow and ice in the street right where it meets the driveway and the top 2 boxes spilled off the stack and onto the ground. I was a little pi$$ed at first seeing the drivers fall to the pavement 3-5', but then noticed they are kind of an awkward box when oriented vertically as the motor weight on one side makes it susceptible to tipping over -- he was obviously really sorry about it. I had to leave the house and didn't have time to check them out, but I'm thinking they're just fine as the packaging on these things is truly stellar!
post #637 of 2212
I didn't notice anyone mention it but SI added some additional venting on the back compared to the driver Ricci tested on data bass.
post #638 of 2212
Looks like a nice driver for sure.
post #639 of 2212
Alright so, 8 of these (dual 2 dvc) powered by 1 tech 8000 in stereo or mono.????

Is these advisable

I have a second Itech 8000 on deck
post #640 of 2212
Not sure of the I tech power output but the driver is rated at 600 Watts in a 6 cubic foot enclosure. It can take more juice but in a smaller cabinet to help protect from over excursion. How much power is too much, not sure but they said they designed the driver to NOT need a bunch of power. Many have mentioned applying a 1,000 Watts per driver in smaller enclosures.
post #641 of 2212
Figure 1000 watts in 3-4ft^ sealed per driver.
post #642 of 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhisafa View Post

Alright so, 8 of these (dual 2 dvc) powered by 1 tech 8000 in stereo or mono.????
Is these advisable
I have a second Itech 8000 on deck

Luis,

The itech appears to support 4 ohm stereo and 8 ohm mono just fine. Looking at the manual, this appears to be optimal for this amp vs 2 ohm stereo and 4 ohm mono, which I find very odd... Regardless, 8 D2 subs per amp, 1,000 watts per sub is great.

Aren't you already rocking quad LMS-U's?
post #643 of 2212
Welp, I was pretty well loaded myself smile.gif



post #644 of 2212
popalock,

The quad LMS project is on hold for the moment. I have two LMS at the moment. After seeing these pop up on the market, It got me thinking I could do the same or better for less.

Not sure what route to go... I could finish and end up with just 4 LMS or have 8 SI.

What does the collective group think?
post #645 of 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Welp, I was pretty well loaded myself smile.gif

Haha, nice beast!!! Those boxes were bigger than you thought, huh?

I gotta ask, how the heck would you have picked up my order too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhisafa View Post

popalock,
The quad LMS project is on hold for the moment. I have two LMS at the moment. After seeing these pop up on the market, It got me thinking I could do the same or better for less.
Not sure what route to go... I could finish and end up with just 4 LMS or have 8 SI.
What does the collective group think?

8 SI's wouls give more output. However, those that have quad LMS-U's freakin love them! I'm very happy with my dual LMS setup and 2 more would have been awesome... Anyone wanting more than what quad LMS-U's bring to the table is...

It's up to you man..
post #646 of 2212
Regarding excursion, from where the holes are to screw in the driver to the top of the surround is 1”. Does the xmax begin from where the cone rests to the top of the surround or beyond? Trying to account for how close the driver could be to a boundary without hitting it during potential high excursion.
post #647 of 2212
This thread is making my purchase of 2 CHT 18.2's very lame!!!
post #648 of 2212
Another thing I like about this driver is the cone. I love the look of paper based cones. The cone is very solid. Seems thicker than a lot of other pulp sub cones. There's a deep thud when you tap it. Reminds me of the svs ultra driver.
post #649 of 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaNile View Post

This thread is making my purchase of 2 CHT 18.2's very lame!!!

Nothing lame about running 4 18's, son! cool.gif
post #650 of 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaNile View Post

This thread is making my purchase of 2 CHT 18.2's very lame!!!

Yes, lame...

post #651 of 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlbeck View Post

Yes, lame...

+1
post #652 of 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlbeck View Post

Yes, lame...


+2
post #653 of 2212
x3

Is it too late to cancel the CHT?

Who's the toolbar who advised you to buy those. tongue.gif







edit: BIran6751, you misunderstood me! I have updated my post to more clearly reflect my opinion.
Edited by Archaea - 1/5/13 at 7:30pm
post #654 of 2212
Code:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post

x3
is it too late to cancel?

I must be looking at the graph wrong. The way I'm seeing it, the Dayton kills the CHT.
post #655 of 2212
If I knew what those graphs meant that would help!

Since I have zero DIY skills I couldn't go the Dayton HO route, my only choice is to keep writing checks.
post #656 of 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaNile View Post

If I knew what those graphs meant that would help!
Since I have zero DIY skills I couldn't go the Dayton HO route, my only choice is to keep writing checks.
I'll take a check...
post #657 of 2212
I think I have seen that the Chase sealed design is ~ -18db @ 20hz. Going to need a lot of room gain, how big is your room? Ported or another design may be a better option depending on the transfer function of your room.
post #658 of 2212
That graph seems off comparing the Dayton and the cht. A ulf monster it is not but there's no way it should be almost 20db lower in output.
post #659 of 2212
Don't make me regret my purchase before its even shipped to me. Regardless of the numbers it'll be an improvement over what is currently being used. It's simple, if 2 doesn't do it then I'll order 2 more.
post #660 of 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian6751 View Post

Code:
I must be looking at the graph wrong. The way I'm seeing it, the Dayton kills the CHT.

Plenty of misinformation here. rolleyes.gif

First thing to note is the CHT sub compared in that graph is the VS18.1; which is a single 18" in a vented cabinet, and not the dual 18" sealed that SeaNile is getting a pair of.

Second thing to note is the CHT sub is not even compared against the Stereo Integrity 18" that this thread is about; it's the Dayton 18" instead (which admittedly is extremely close).

Third thing (and most important as far as skewing of data) is that graph shown is of the 'basic response'; not max output. I'm not smart enough to say exactly what 'basic response' as tested by Data-Bass is, but I can tell you that a single sealed SI 18 also 'destroys' a DTS-10's basic response of 72-90 dB from 10-50 Hz as well.

I am not a CHT fanboy at all (never owned anything they make), but if that was meant to be any kind of 'comparison', the layman taking a glance at that post might think the CHT is a POS. The CHT products are pretty dang nice for the guy that doesn't want to make his own stuff but wants alot of the performance that DIY can offer.

On another note dlbeck, how were you able to get that comparison graph posted? I've tried to post a few Data-Bass comparisons and can't figure out how to link the picture. Printscreen?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Stereo Integrity's new HT Subwoofer