or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › S.E.O.S.R. MEGA BUILD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

S.E.O.S.R. MEGA BUILD - Page 4

post #91 of 1496
If you're going to go all out on this and you're using the big horn and the coax compression driver I'd lean towards going WWTWW with 4 TD-18s in a floor to ceiling monster. Tune it fairly low to get the port below the intended crossover point to the subs for HT.

Also, some of the comments with the MTM dispersion concerns is overlooking that the T is still usually contributing in the overlap region which fills the middle some and isn't as bad as the woofer only model. With 4 woofers vertically there are plenty of tricks to play with shading as needed, not to mention that with the floor and ceiling you really have a line with only the gap of the horn in the middle.

Has anyone actually measured the SEOS-24? Any ballpark of the HxV nominal dispersion?
post #92 of 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

"Bhazard, I saw you mentioned using the BMS coaxes on the smaller SEOS horns. There is no point in doing that."

why not? if the horn loses directivity at the same rate as the woofer, it is still a directivity match even though the horn is technically losing pattern control.

Because there is no point in crossing the SEOS-15 well below its useful range. What exactly would the benefit be? I still think the Noesis is a compromise I wouldn't make (not saying it sounds bad or is "flawed" but unless you need a speaker that narrow to reach that level of output it is not the path I would take). The main reason it is done is due to packaging and the ability to use the horn as a horizontal center. It is a better compromise with the 18Sound 60deg horns. It buys you nothing with the SEOS-15.

Why would it better than a SEOS-15/BMS4550/TD15M crossed in the 1000hz range?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopShop1 View Post

Thanks for chimming in, I was hoping you would! I like the idea of duals above and below..any reason we can't go larger on the woofers and still reap the benefits?? I would love 2 15s above and 2 below, but don't want to fight myself with physics if it makes things difficult. I think I like the idea of passives for the CD and active from the woofer to the CD's passive more and more as I read and think. I also agree with the simplicity of full passive surrounds being worth the cost.
Yeeeeeesssssss! I love it!!! the four woofer arrangement is the cats a$$. Spend my $$!!!!

The problem with the dual 15's is that they are too wide and directivity will collapse to become narrower than the horn's directivity. It also makes for a rather narrow vertical lobe.

Dual 10s would give the designer a wider window to cross. We don't have measurements of the SEOS-24. We don't know when it loses directivity control or how the BMS coaxes will work on it. It might sound best and measure best with a 700hz crossover and the larger woofers would be a problem at those frequencies. The 4 TD10's would give you the best of all worlds. Bigger is not always better.
post #93 of 1496
Yeah but 4 10's are not going to hit 130dB at 40hz wink.gif

The quad 15's in the mtm setup should give a -6 point about +-15 degrees at 500hz and +- 20 degrees at 400hz. The horizontal directivity should be OK at those crossover points also, maybe a little tighter then the SEOS-24 at those frequencies. I think as the waveguide's pattern start to widen into the crossover region while the woofers pattern narrows the crossover may end up smoothing the two together nicely. Though It is limited to about a 500hz crossover max with the 15's. There is always some compromise.
post #94 of 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

If you're going to go all out on this and you're using the big horn and the coax compression driver I'd lean towards going WWTWW with 4 TD-18s in a floor to ceiling monster. Tune it fairly low to get the port below the intended crossover point to the subs for HT.

Also, some of the comments with the MTM dispersion concerns is overlooking that the T is still usually contributing in the overlap region which fills the middle some and isn't as bad as the woofer only model. With 4 woofers vertically there are plenty of tricks to play with shading as needed, not to mention that with the floor and ceiling you really have a line with only the gap of the horn in the middle.

Has anyone actually measured the SEOS-24? Any ballpark of the HxV nominal dispersion?

4 TD18's in a line would be cool. By my math it would be over 6ft tall. Ouch.

That would be a beast of an enclosure to build. I'd probably do it as 3 boxes...or maybe 6.

I'm not sure the SEOS-24 will be so great down around 500hz. Of course it would be doable that low as the Noesis does it well below where the horn is useful. I'd guess the SEOS will be best crossed around 600-700z looking at the dimensions.

If someone really wants to get wild, you could do a 4-way with 8 shaded MTM 6" pro mids covering ~200hz-700hz and a two TD18H's one above and one below. The shaded 6's would help control horizontal directivity lower to maybe 400hz. The TD18H's could be setup to fire backwards into the corner like the Pi Cornerhorns.

When you get into these uber-builds the differences are all quite tiny. I would optimize for smooth horizontal directivity with a nice vertical lobe. IMO, the quad MTM 10s is the best of everything. You could do quad 12's but it is riskier without measuring the SEOS-24 first. Headroom, dynamic capability, low distortion, great extension and perfect directivity is what this would get you. The only way I could see trumping this would be a large Synergy clone with MTM woofers config'd as cornerhorns...get back in the back cat. wink.gif
post #95 of 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by coctostan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

"Bhazard, I saw you mentioned using the BMS coaxes on the smaller SEOS horns. There is no point in doing that."

why not? if the horn loses directivity at the same rate as the woofer, it is still a directivity match even though the horn is technically losing pattern control.

Because there is no point in crossing the SEOS-15 well below its useful range. What exactly would the benefit be? I still think the Noesis is a compromise I wouldn't make (not saying it sounds bad or is "flawed" but unless you need a speaker that narrow to reach that level of output it is not the path I would take). The main reason it is done is due to packaging and the ability to use the horn as a horizontal center. It is a better compromise with the 18Sound 60deg horns. It buys you nothing with the SEOS-15.

The reasons for pushing the low end of a horn as it loses pattern control is for directivity benefits through shifting a crossover point lower or allowing more overlap in a crossover to reduce vertical lobing. This is not always a priority in the vertical for all designs, and is why we see different implementations.
post #96 of 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

The reasons for pushing the low end of a horn as it loses pattern control is for directivity benefits through shifting a crossover point lower or allowing more overlap in a crossover to reduce vertical lobing. This is not always a priority in the vertical for all designs, and is why we see different implementations.

I understand that...but vertical lobing isn't an issue with a single woofer in a MT configuration and a SEOS-15. I'd rather stick to a single better woofer. It is more important with an MTM. That is why it makes sense for a commercial product like the Noesis which can be used MTM horizontally and stays fairly narrow which will sell far better. From a commercial perspective, the Noesis makes sense. From a DIY perspective, where a 14" width doesn't need to be met, I don't see the point. It also helps that the 18sound horns are 60deg and not 90deg.
post #97 of 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by coctostan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

The reasons for pushing the low end of a horn as it loses pattern control is for directivity benefits through shifting a crossover point lower or allowing more overlap in a crossover to reduce vertical lobing. This is not always a priority in the vertical for all designs, and is why we see different implementations.

I understand that...but vertical lobing isn't an issue with a single woofer in a MT configuration and a SEOS-15.

The woofer doesn't lobe with another woofer, but for any range where the individual devices have directivity there will be some lobing through crossover due to the separate sources interacting. Some deem it a non-issue, some don't, just as some would think more than a 12" or a pair of 10" drivers for midbass is insanity. Everyone gets to make their own design choices.
post #98 of 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by coctostan View Post

If someone really wants to get wild, you could do a 4-way with 8 shaded MTM 6" pro mids covering ~200hz-700hz and a two TD18H's one above and one below. The shaded 6's would help control horizontal directivity lower to maybe 400hz.

BTW, this is not far from ideas I've had to get silly with the BMS coax drivers.
post #99 of 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtg90 View Post

Yeah but 4 10's are not going to hit 130dB at 40hz wink.gif

The quad 15's in the mtm setup should give a -6 point about +-15 degrees at 500hz and +- 20 degrees at 400hz. The horizontal directivity should be OK at those crossover points also, maybe a little tighter then the SEOS-24 at those frequencies. I think as the waveguide's pattern start to widen into the crossover region while the woofers pattern narrows the crossover may end up smoothing the two together nicely. Though It is limited to about a 500hz crossover max with the 15's. There is always some compromise.

My modeling looks pretty good with 4 TD10S's in 12 cu ft tuned to 27hz and a LR4 HPF at ~20hz. It would top out around 122db at 30hz and It won't do 130db in free space, but it would likely do it in a small room. I assume 130db @40hz is not a target you are realistically considering. Speaker design is a game of compromises, even at this insane level. I would personally take the flexibility around crossover point.
post #100 of 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

The woofer doesn't lobe with another woofer, but for any range where the individual devices have directivity there will be some lobing through crossover due to the separate sources interacting. Some deem it a non-issue, some don't, just as some would think more than a 12" or a pair of 10" drivers for midbass is insanity. Everyone gets to make their own design choices.

Definitely, but the lobe with a 15" woofer and a 6.5" tall horn crossed around 1000hz, assuming it is steered properly, won't be an issue. In fact it can be used to mitigate some floor bounce over that narrow range. Running the SEOS-15 with a 1.4" throat and a BMS coax down to 600hz so you can add a woofer on top is IMO a trade-off not worth making. The Noesis is a little different from that I completely understand the tradeoffs made there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

BTW, this is not far from ideas I've had to get silly with the BMS coax drivers.

Yeah, I almost did this with the JBL 4722 horn and a 24 6" drivers in an MTM with shading. I've since decided to take a different path. If I had unlimited time I would definitely try it. I like the idea of a single point covering a very wide range and getting directivity control from the schroeder and up. When you get into the uber systems it can get crazy.
post #101 of 1496
Part of the problem with this design is its all speculation without the seos24 measured and having measured various woofers in various configurations. I mentioned to chop in pm that all th drivers should be built modular and taken outside to measure different configurations. But what woofer to buy when he doesn't know the best configuration. FWIW, I like the quad 10 idea. The wwtww with 18s is awesome also, but fear it would corner chop into a design compromise if things didnt measure quite as hoped.
post #102 of 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post

Part of the problem with this design is its all speculation without the seos24 measured and having measured various woofers in various configurations. I mentioned to chop in pm that all th drivers should be built modular and taken outside to measure different configurations. But what woofer to buy when he doesn't know the best configuration. FWIW, I like the quad 10 idea. The wwtww with 18s is awesome also, but fear it would corner chop into a design compromise if things didnt measure quite as hoped.

Absolutely Tux. Jzagaja might have measurements. I think that either the quad 10s (or maybe quad 12s, but don't see much advantage) or the vertical shaded MTM of 15's or 18's are the best solutions. Which is better? Who knows. The quad 10s would control horizontal directivity a bit lower. The vertical column suggested by Seaton would have more bass headroom for sure. The quad 10s would also be a more realistic form factor IMO.
post #103 of 1496
I can get a pair of SEOS-24's shipped here pretty fast. Maybe by next week.


I think the best bet is dual 12's underneath....for the average Joe. The crazy man could then do the same thing with another set of dual 12's over the waveguide.

Four 15's or four 18's would severely limit anyone else from even attempting such a build. And no one else will be able to hear them unless they go over to Chop's house.
post #104 of 1496
"Because there is no point in crossing the SEOS-15 well below its useful range. What exactly would the benefit be?"

to get more of the sound into the horn. more of the content would be point source.
post #105 of 1496
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

If you're going to go all out on this and you're using the big horn and the coax compression driver I'd lean towards going WWTWW with 4 TD-18s in a floor to ceiling monster. Tune it fairly low to get the port below the intended crossover point to the subs for HT.

Also, some of the comments with the MTM dispersion concerns is overlooking that the T is still usually contributing in the overlap region which fills the middle some and isn't as bad as the woofer only model. With 4 woofers vertically there are plenty of tricks to play with shading as needed, not to mention that with the floor and ceiling you really have a line with only the gap of the horn in the middle.

Has anyone actually measured the SEOS-24? Any ballpark of the HxV nominal dispersion?

Thanks for chimming in Mark, much appreciated!! I have contacted Erich with regard to his offer to get a couple 24s here to measure on the fly. That will tell us a lot about which way to go, I think. If it measures well enough to do it, I would love to do the quad 18 wwtww stack!! If not, a compromise will have to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coctostan View Post

My modeling looks pretty good with 4 TD10S's in 12 cu ft tuned to 27hz and a LR4 HPF at ~20hz. It would top out around 122db at 30hz and It won't do 130db in free space, but it would likely do it in a small room. I assume 130db @40hz is not a target you are realistically considering. Speaker design is a game of compromises, even at this insane level. I would personally take the flexibility around crossover point.

The model doesn't look bad at all. If the SEOS24 doesn't quite measure for the larger dirvers it would be the way to go, assuring the ability to get the sound right far more. Even if it measures well and we get limited to quad 12s, they measure almost as good as dual 18s!!

Tux, I am certainly going to put your advise to build the test cabs modular to play with different configurations, thank you!
post #106 of 1496
I bet I have read through this thread5x just today. I can't wait to see what you end up doing. I am rooting for the quad 15"s or 18"s. On occasion throwing caution to the wind and diving into something huge is the only way to go. smile.gif The 7' tall wwtww concept would look the most intimidating IMO. I can picture the SEOS24 sandwiched between 4-AE TD 18"s per LCR in my head like they were sitting in my living room. Any of the choices you and others have listed will go down in history as an epic project.
post #107 of 1496
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post

Part of the problem with this design is its all speculation without the seos24 measured and having measured various woofers in various configurations. I mentioned to chop in pm that all th drivers should be built modular and taken outside to measure different configurations. But what woofer to buy when he doesn't know the best configuration. FWIW, I like the quad 10 idea. The wwtww with 18s is awesome also, but fear it would corner chop into a design compromise if things didnt measure quite as hoped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coctostan View Post

Absolutely Tux. Jzagaja might have measurements. I think that either the quad 10s (or maybe quad 12s, but don't see much advantage) or the vertical shaded MTM of 15's or 18's are the best solutions. Which is better? Who knows. The quad 10s would control horizontal directivity a bit lower. The vertical column suggested by Seaton would have more bass headroom for sure. The quad 10s would also be a more realistic form factor IMO.

I wanted to put this back out there guys, after the long conversation I had with John last night. We talked a lot about TD15m all around, singles(doubles mtm would be cool, but not really usefull as surorunds I think) and quads up front with the verticle wwtww configuration. John's thoughts, based on room specs, seating, the want for flexibility of xover between 400-800hz, etc, are that the wwtww 15s will offer the best compromise and should have no trouble if a xover point on the higher end is needed. This is what he said he'd be doing if it were his. He thinks it would have disgusting levels of effortless output and the design would more than likely work really well. He also suggested the single 15 in surrounds vs dual 12s.

As for form factor, not even close to a concern for me. Whatever I need to build, I am willing to build and can fit. I will keep a couple modular test cabinets to bring them to GTGs etc.

I had sent Erich a note on getting a pair of seos24s here to measure, but I know he is super busy and don't want to harass him too much:D

I guess what I'm asking is do you guys think the verticle quad 15s will leave me flexibile enough to deal with some adversity if needing to cross higher?? I have my order in for all TD15M drivers, but could swap if the SEOS show up really quickly somehow. In the end, If I have to experiment and buy more woofers, oh well, I think the final outcome will be worth it once we get it right. I could also just add some smaller drivers and shade as suggested if the quad vert 15s act funny. maybe 4 6s, 4 15s and the 4594:D Really though, in this situation I could move some of the 15s from the lcr to the surrounds for an MTM design and use dual 15, quad 6 and CD in the mains. Again, this would be a contigency plan in the event that verticle quad 15s has trouble. I would do the 18s verticle, but the potential upside vs quad 15s, imho, isn't enough to warrant the risk in conceptual desgn. No doubt the 18s would be awesome, but in reality the quad 15s would probably be used to 50% capacity or less, for at least 50% of the time.
post #108 of 1496
Watching closely chop. I may be trying to duplicate your build. I will have to find someone to build the cabs for me, but I think that would be worth it.

I am also considering catalyst 12Cs, JTR noesis, and danley sh50s. It seems this build will be the noesis on steroids, I would really like a true full range 20-20 speaker for my LCR. Coming from three LS9s, unless maybe Seaton has something I'm the works?biggrin.gif
post #109 of 1496
Quad 15s would be the configuration I would be interested in replicating when I do my build (next year unfortunately).
post #110 of 1496
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcallister View Post

Watching closely chop. I may be trying to duplicate your build. I will have to find someone to build the cabs for me, but I think that would be worth it.

I am also considering catalyst 12Cs, JTR noesis, and danley sh50s. It seems this build will be the noesis on steroids, I would really like a true full range 20-20 speaker for my LCR. Coming from three LS9s, unless maybe Seaton has something I'm the works?biggrin.gif

I'm not quite sure how it will compare to any of them. Mark, Jeff and Mr Danley are all world class at this, its hard to say. I think the final acitve tuning, etc. will determine a lot. I'm hoping that with a couple thousand watts, quad 15s and the best CD within my reach, they will be disgusting amounts of overkill with all the finese I could want.

I bet you could find someone with the ability to replicate or even design the cabs to fit your needs for reasonable cost. All that said, I have been jonesing to get a listen to the other complete options. I am committed to this build, but may still grap something like the CAT8 floorstanders or JTR Q8s to replace the Revels in my family room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFGuy View Post

Quad 15s would be the configuration I would be interested in replicating when I do my build (next year unfortunately).

Keep in touch when you are ready and I'll get you all the details I can on the finished product.
post #111 of 1496
Maybe I can be of some help on the electronics side of things. I plan to assemble some ncore amps for my new setup.
post #112 of 1496
what are you planning for subwoofers? i don't recall reading about your plan there.

do you want the speakers to all run full range? what is full range anymore? 20-20k or 3-20k?
post #113 of 1496
Measly 8 18's IIRC...
post #114 of 1496
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

what are you planning for subwoofers? i don't recall reading about your plan there.

do you want the speakers to all run full range? what is full range anymore? 20-20k or 3-20k?

I don't care to be true "full range", just want to have the ability to uses whatever xover point works best...80hz, 60hz, whatever. 90% of the time, the room will be running movies, and the other 10%, there really won't be a need for 2.0, BR concert, etc. for gtgs with friends and such. I am not really a two channel guy, just want the flexibility to optimize it all. 4 of the TD15M will do 130db from 50hz up and 124db or so at 40hz with only 1500w in 15cubes and a 50hz tune....all within exc limits (ok, within 1mm of limits).

Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post

Measly 8 18's IIRC...

You would have been correct....a few days ago biggrin.gif I'm not saying 8 more are showing up this week, but I'm not saying they're not:D

To answer LTD, I now have 16 of the Dayton RSS460 18s. I have 10kw for them now, but will probably double it with two more CV5Ks.
post #115 of 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopShop1 View Post

I don't care to be true "full range", just want to have the ability to uses whatever xover point works best...80hz, 60hz, whatever. 90% of the time, the room will be running movies, and the other 10%, there really won't be a need for 2.0, BR concert, etc. for gtgs with friends and such. I am not really a two channel guy, just want the flexibility to optimize it all. 4 of the TD15M will do 130db from 50hz up and 124db or so at 40hz with only 1500w in 15cubes and a 50hz tune....all within exc limits (ok, within 1mm of limits).
You would have been correct....a few days ago biggrin.gif I'm not saying 8 more are showing up this week, but I'm not saying they're not:D

To answer LTD, I now have 16 of the Dayton RSS460 18s. I have 10kw for them now, but will probably double it with two more CV5Ks.
You are absolutely ridiculous. And it's outstanding. I was sitting here in my living room emailing carp and looking at the Tempests when I realized that the SEOS24 waveguide, rotated vertically, would be an inch shorter than these not-small ported 12" speakers and about half an inch wider. Your WG in your surrounds will be bigger than my speaker. WG...bigger than speaker. Fantastic.
post #116 of 1496
This is the Hypex ncore amp, I think they would make good match for this project. Basically the Ncore is Hypex's next generation Class D design and is going to be in several big name manufacture's amp as an OEM. The amp and power supply comes pre-assembled, so you really only have to throw it in a box and run some basic wiring harnesses. The ncores amps are considered expensive in the DIY community but they are on par with this project (about $700-900 per monoblock depending what case you go with). The ncore amps have been blowing ppl away so far, I figure I am willing to try them out (unless i find some used Brystons).



post #117 of 1496
Chop-

The only issue I see is the spacing between the top and bottom TD15's. By my math they would be about 5ft apart. You would need to shade them to basically work as .5 woofers for any cross higher than maybe 500hz. I wouldn't want much out of the outer woofers above maybe 250hz.
post #118 of 1496
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFGuy View Post

This is the Hypex ncore amp, I think they would make good match for this project. Basically the Ncore is Hypex's next generation Class D design and is going to be in several big name manufacture's amp as an OEM. The amp and power supply comes pre-assembled, so you really only have to throw it in a box and run some basic wiring harnesses. The ncores amps are considered expensive in the DIY community but they are on par with this project (about $700-900 per monoblock depending what case you go with). The ncore amps have been blowing ppl away so far, I figure I am willing to try them out (unless i find some used Brystons).




Thanks HF! I looked up some info on them after you suggested them earlier. I would be interested to hear your impressions and what you run them with once you finish yours up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coctostan View Post

Chop-

The only issue I see is the spacing between the top and bottom TD15's. By my math they would be about 5ft apart. You would need to shade them to basically work as .5 woofers for any cross higher than maybe 500hz. I wouldn't want much out of the outer woofers above maybe 250hz.

Damn near exactly 5ft. As long as output in the range each set of woofers is handeling is still substantial, I woul be ok with that too.
post #119 of 1496
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSmithers View Post

You are absolutely ridiculous. And it's outstanding. I was sitting here in my living room emailing carp and looking at the Tempests when I realized that the SEOS24 waveguide, rotated vertically, would be an inch shorter than these not-small ported 12" speakers and about half an inch wider. Your WG in your surrounds will be bigger than my speaker. WG...bigger than speaker. Fantastic.

biggrin.gif I know I am, in all likelyhood, going far past what I will need, but I don't want to look back and wish I did more. I will still build stuff once this is done, but for other purposes most likely. I want to be able to run this system in the HT for a long time without the desire to change.
post #120 of 1496
i was kind of think'n the same thing as mr. c. maybe offset baffles could help a little.

the other thing is that tuning frequency. a lot of guys with super systems like the effect of running the mains in more of a full range mode. the high tuning might limit that somewhat. i understand a high tuning for p.a., but not so much for this application. i'm sure you'll get it sorted out...

16 18's... :-)

on the surface, that sounds insane, but even with amps, that whole rig is less than the cost of some single audiophile subwoofers. don't look back...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › S.E.O.S.R. MEGA BUILD