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 33

post #961 of 1496
Awesome build! I hate to say this but you won't even come close to pushing these and if you do you will lose your hearing. I can reach reference levels at my LP with 2 watts and the surrounds with a massive 16 watts! That means I am not even using close to their potential. That is with dual horn loaded deltalite 2510's! It sounds great at reference but once I go louder I can cause some ear ringing although it still sounds awesome. Be careful! What sucks is that once you reach the body limits it is like having a 1000 hp car that you can only use in your driveway!
post #962 of 1496
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post

SEOSRRRRRRrrrrrrrrr...

You should link your build thread in your sig man.

Well, now that it sounds like a pirate speaker biggrin.gif:D

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

"Wow, that literally added nothing to this thread..."

maybe not, but ^^ had me rolling. :-)

the model with the 18's coming in will of course have a 6db bump in response at the crossover point, so a little different than the pic seems to imply. it could work with some eq. i'm just say'n. still not sure how to get around the problem of losing bass when the mains are run "full range" but can't stretch to even 20hz. generally folks with these kinds of systems like to pump up the 20hz, not have that be the tailend.

I am just getting settled home from the office, so no models yet for me today.

My intention for the these is to have heart pounding output that adds a ridiculously unnecessary level impact. My thought was that we could use the 18s to bump the output in the 150hz and down area and still cross to the subs around 60(providing that's what works out in room) I have no intention of running these full range for two channel often at all. With a minimum of 16 of the Dayton 18s, I feel like, in theory, we can make the whole range come together really well. My logic, and I am very open to being corrected if I'm wrong, is that by making them as capable as humanly possible, I am spending about the same money as a high end unit like the Cat12 or Noesis costs and creating something of the ultimate HT speaker...cost and size no factor(within ridiculous reason of course:D ) So, the final design should lend itself to max output from like 50hz on up right?? Now, based on Matts other logic, if it's beneficial to run the 18s lower, that's fine with me too

I am a real beginner in true design and theory aspect, but trying to learn fast. With the help of all you folks and a person like Matt who is willing to help hands on and in person for the price of a plane ticket...I can't go wrong. biggrin.gif Sorry to ramble guys, just trying get my bearings.
Edited by ChopShop1 - 9/25/13 at 4:26pm
post #963 of 1496
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

Awesome build! I hate to say this but you won't even come close to pushing these and if you do you will lose your hearing. I can reach reference levels at my LP with 2 watts and the surrounds with a massive 16 watts! That means I am not even using close to their potential. That is with dual horn loaded deltalite 2510's! It sounds great at reference but once I go louder I can cause some ear ringing although it still sounds awesome. Be careful! What sucks is that once you reach the body limits it is like having a 1000 hp car that you can only use in your driveway!

Yeah, but we can give everyone ear plugs, crank it and watch the room implode biggrin.gif

Seriously though, thanks! I know we won't come close to the potential of the system, but I thinking like this: I am spending the "twice as much for a few % in performance" money now. I may only gain a couple db in a some small areas when within the regular use zone, but the overkill insures that I won't be in a place to want for more under any circumstance. Hopefully, it will also limit any kind of distortion as much as humanly possible. Kind of like I watched your builds go biggrin.gif I figure if anyone gets it, its you MK!
post #964 of 1496
Matt, that's true on point 3.
post #965 of 1496
You could go cardioid in a passive resistive enclosure with the 15M's from 150hz to 450hz, and have the 18's take over below that. You'll have matching directivity between the SEOS-24 and 15M's, cardioid dispersion from the schroeder frequency and up, and still have plenty of low end. smile.gif
post #966 of 1496
Don't worry, I am not going soft! My mains could play near 140 dBs max output so I am excited to hear how this turns out! My 8 IB3's are on their way, finally! Oh I turned my room into 1574 cubic feet!
post #967 of 1496
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

Don't worry, I am not going soft! My mains could play near 140 dBs max output so I am excited to hear how this turns out! My 8 IB3's are on their way, finally! Oh I turned my room into 1574 cubic feet!

Hahahaha, nice. A massive IB still intrigues me too. I will watch, for sure, to see how that project comes along...with you behind it, I imagine it will be great!
post #968 of 1496
Thread Starter 
I've run a couple of models on the 18s, and on paper...it appears the ported alignment on both them and the 15s keeps us within excursion and gets max spl. I may not be doing it 100% correct with regard to applying the highpass, etc. The slope of the sealed alignment is much gentler and more gradual, which I understand can dictate a better sounding design...??? The ported curve isn't extremely abrupt than it should be due to tuning, I thinks.. not sure how to attach my models
post #969 of 1496
if you want to go that route, no problemo. the trick will be to find an integration such that the 18's as well as the 15's produce a nice smooth response, AND as the volume gets turned up neither of them run out of xmax prematurely. with a crossover at 60hz or so, the 18's will have so much more headroom than the 15's, such a solution may be a little tricky. that's all i wuzsay'n.
post #970 of 1496
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

if you want to go that route, no problemo. the trick will be to find an integration such that the 18's as well as the 15's produce a nice smooth response, AND as the volume gets turned up neither of them run out of xmax prematurely. with a crossover at 60hz or so, the 18's will have so much more headroom than the 15's, such a solution may be a little tricky. that's all i wuzsay'n.

Ahhha....I think I am starting to understand this a bit more...you were saying that the sealed version handles this portion better..?? What, in theory, would present as the starting point for a way to do that?? What would, in theory, be the way to begin trying to accomplish this with the ported iteration??
post #971 of 1496
sometimes an example can help. this is the jbl everest. it uses a 0.5 woofer configuration with the second woofer rolling in to assist with the bass as is being contemplated in one version of this build.





the black line is the frequency response of the total system and the colored lines are for each driver.

what can be seen here is how the second woofer "rolls in". it has something like a second order low pass filter around 100 hz.

in the region where both of the woofers are playing together, the overall frequency response get about a +6db increase. in this case that occurs from about 80 hz down. above that point, the second woofer gently rolls out and only one woofer is playing through the lower midrange.

in the case of the seosr, LF1 = TD18, and LF2 = TD15M. the problem is that lf1 and lf2 are both playing the same spl in the 80hz region +/-. that is fine at lower volume. however, as the volume gets turned up, the td15m will run out excursion before the td18, so in some sense, there would be no point to using a td18 and a simple second td15m would suffice.

i was curious if somebody had thought of a way to create a smooth integration of the two woofers, but put a disproportionate weight on the td18 because it is the more capable driver in the mid bass region.
Edited by LTD02 - 9/26/13 at 4:10am
post #972 of 1496
here is one implementation for how it could work with two td15m woofers for the seosr

the black line is one td15m 5 cubic feet, tuned to 50hz. max spl is excursion limited to about 122db (not shown in this plot).

now, we want to add in a second td15m, but preserve the frequency response of the single driver.

step 1: add a -6db shelf filter which is shown toward the bottom in yellow. this will transform the frequency response of the black line into the red line.

step 2: add a second td15m. this is the blue line. we use the same -6db shelf filter as the first woofer, but we also add to that a 2nd order low pass filter at 100hz so that it rolls off as the frequency goes up.

so from about 200hz and up, almost all of the response is on one woofer, the red line.

down at 50hz and below the two woofers are operating fully together which produces +6db.

the NET response of the red line and the blue line is the black line!

since the black line was where we started with the unadjusted response of a single woofer, we have achieved the objective of maximizing headroom while preserving the original frequency response of the single driver.

at 50hz for example, each driver will only be called upon to produce ~112db spl, but together they will be outputting 118db!

now max spl is no longer excursion limited to 122db, but is instead increased to 128db (again, not shown).


Edited by LTD02 - 9/26/13 at 4:15am
post #973 of 1496
now, we are shooting for a max spl system, so why stop at 128db right? right!

this example is for 1 td15m and adding in a second one.

if another pair is used on the top and done exactly the same way, max spl goes up by another +6db. so now max spl is excursion limited to 134db using a total of 4 td15m woofers.

but there is more...
Edited by LTD02 - 9/26/13 at 4:16am
post #974 of 1496
as if 134db is not sufficient, the excursion limited spl occurs around 65-70hz in this example.

if the mains are crossed over to the subs at 65-70hz, then the mains will be down -6db at the cross over point. or put another way, headroom goes up by another 6db because excursion demands on the mains will be reduced by crossing over to the subs, which is the whole point of crossing over to subs.

assuming the 16+ subs can keep up, and they probably can, back-of-the-envelope is another +6db for a total of 140db or so. that would seem to be "loud enough" as that is "per speaker" and there are 3 of these mega mains.
post #975 of 1496
and if it makes you feel any better, the jbl everest goes for about $60,000 per pair. you would have essentially a dual everest or about $60,000 per speaker for a front of house equivalent of $180,000. :-)

post #976 of 1496
now back to the regularly scheduled programming. :-)
post #977 of 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

and if it makes you feel any better, the jbl everest goes for about $60,000 per pair. you would have essentially a dual everest or about $60,000 per speaker for a front of house equivalent of $180,000. :-)


Yes. That makes me feel better.

Thank you.
post #978 of 1496
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

sometimes an example can help. this is the jbl everest. it uses a 0.5 woofer configuration with the second woofer rolling in to assist with the bass as is being contemplated in one version of this build.





the black line is the frequency response of the total system and the colored lines are for each driver.

what can be seen here is how the second woofer "rolls in". it has something like a second order low pass filter around 100 hz.

in the region where both of the woofers are playing together, the overall frequency response get about a +6db increase. in this case that occurs from about 80 hz down. above that point, the second woofer gently rolls out and only one woofer is playing through the lower midrange.

in the case of the seosr, LF1 = TD18, and LF2 = TD15M. the problem is that lf1 and lf2 are both playing the same spl in the 80hz region +/-. that is fine at lower volume. however, as the volume gets turned up, the td15m will run out excursion before the td18, so in some sense, there would be no point to using a td18 and a simple second td15m would suffice.

i was curious if somebody had thought of a way to create a smooth integration of the two woofers, but put a disproportionate weight on the td18 because it is the more capable driver in the mid bass region.

Got it, makes perfect sense to me now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

here is one implementation for how it could work with two td15m woofers for the seosr

the black line is one td15m 5 cubic feet, tuned to 50hz. max spl is excursion limited to about 122db (not shown in this plot).

now, we want to add in a second td15m, but preserve the frequency response of the single driver.

step 1: add a -6db shelf filter which is shown toward the bottom in yellow. this will transform the frequency response of the black line into the red line.

step 2: add a second td15m. this is the blue line. we use the same -6db shelf filter as the first woofer, but we also add to that a 2nd order low pass filter at 100hz so that it rolls off as the frequency goes up.

so from about 200hz and up, almost all of the response is on one woofer, the red line.

down at 50hz and below the two woofers are operating fully together which produces +6db.

the NET response of the red line and the blue line is the black line!

since the black line was where we started with the unadjusted response of a single woofer, we have achieved the objective of maximizing headroom while preserving the original frequency response of the single driver.

at 50hz for example, each driver will only be called upon to produce ~112db spl, but together they will be outputting 118db!

now max spl is no longer excursion limited to 122db, but is instead increased to 128db (again, not shown).


Ahha....I spent some time last night reading a few articles/posts on shading and .5 woofers, etc, just to try and get a full understanding so I can make more sense of the info you guys are giving me. I kind of understand now why the dual 18 addition to the dual 15s sounds kind of silly to most of you and not so well thought out. The original idea of quad 15s seems to make more sense. In reality, I should have been more patient and waited for the seos24 to arrive before buying woofers. Had I done that, I would have know how low the 4594/seos24 combo could be crossed and we could have gone all 18s in the mains. Oh well, four 15s per main wouldn't be too shabby biggrin.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

now, we are shooting for a max spl system, so why stop at 128db right? right!

this example is for 1 td15m and adding in a second one.

if another pair is used on the top and done exactly the same way, max spl goes up by another +6db. so not max spl is excursion limited to 134db using a total of 4 td15m woofers.

but there is more...

Duh, biggrin.gif

...and your next post with regard to xing to subs makes me understand fully about the benefit of using the subs to do their job too. Ultimately, the quad solution gets us max spl and limits what's required for each component int he lineup. To me, that is the best recipe for success. Least amount of distortion because of ridiculous headroom. To MK's point, we won't ever use the output per say, but it's being there is that premium to insure the last % of performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

and if it makes you feel any better, the jbl everest goes for about $60,000 per pair. you would have essentially a dual everest or about $60,000 per speaker for a front of house equivalent of $180,000. :-)


Ummmm, since you put it that way biggrin.gif

Seriously though, thank you for taking the time to break it all down a bit further. I'm a visual learner for sure, so seeing it on paper and in graphs helps a lot.
post #979 of 1496
no problem. i never truly understood the 0.5 woofer concept until i saw the everest graphic either, so we must both be "visual learners" whatever the heck that means. :-)

normally, 0.5 woofers would not use the shelf filter as i described, but would instead just use the second woofer to increase and extend the lower end of the frequency response, but in your case, that would just be a waste, hence the different approach.
post #980 of 1496
Oh wow, have my thumbs up (accidental gave Popalock one too tongue.gif ) LTD02.
One question... would the 4594\Seos24 be able to keep up with the 140db woofers?
post #981 of 1496
^^ to the extent that spectral content tends to increase as frequency goes down and to the extent that most systems will be eq'd to have a slightly rising lower end response, i think so. in anything approaching a home theater the 4594/seos24 combo will be deafening, literally, so it will not be limiting in any way.

edit: it looks like the mid/top can handle 150 watts above 400hz and it is about 118db 1w1m sensitive, so it should be up in the max output ballpark of 140db itself and you would never play midrange that loud.


.
Edited by LTD02 - 9/26/13 at 6:11pm
post #982 of 1496
Dual Everest sounds like Scott's quad JBL mains. Also reminds me of the closest thing to the SH96 outside of a SH. Either way this sounds awesome.
post #983 of 1496
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

^^ to the extent that spectral content tends to increase as frequency goes down and to the extent that most systems will be eq'd to have a slightly rising lower end response, i think so. in anything approaching a home theater the 4594/seos24 combo will be defeaning, literally, so it will not be limiting in any way.

edit: it looks like the mid/top can handle 150 watts above 400hz and it is about 118db 1w1m sensitive, so it should be up in the max output ballpark of 140db itself and you would never play midrange that loud.


.

Exactly...we actually had it figured that in the dual 15 arrangement, the woofers would, theoretically, run out of steam before the CD. I say theoretically because when the heck am I gonna push all three fronts to 140db each eek.gif

I really want to get a lot of work done to finsih up the dual 15 cabinet builds this weekend and maybe get to play them by next week/weekend. It will tell us a lot. I don't want to stop discussing going more, and I am almost certain I will, just because, but I want to see how far from "unbeatable" the dual 15 version is. It's very possible that it sounds perfect to me and I don't want to mess with it. That being said, I have lots of extra woofers and three extra seos24, so I could technically work on both versions at once as far as building them goes. I could then put them both in the same space and compare...not a true A/B, just because the size will dictate or ability to switch them, and each time they will need to be moved. It will, however, allow us to take measurements to compare and make subjective assesments as as well.

Holy $h!t, I'm thinking logically...something is wrong biggrin.gif
post #984 of 1496
Put the quad 15 in the left corner and the dual in the right. Then see how you like them. biggrin.gif
post #985 of 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopShop1 View Post

Exactly...we actually had it figured that in the dual 15 arrangement, the woofers would, theoretically, run out of steam before the CD. I say theoretically because when the heck am I gonna push all three fronts to 140db each eek.gif

I really want to get a lot of work done to finsih up the dual 15 cabinet builds this weekend and maybe get to play them by next week/weekend. It will tell us a lot. I don't want to stop discussing going more, and I am almost certain I will, just because, but I want to see how far from "unbeatable" the dual 15 version is. It's very possible that it sounds perfect to me and I don't want to mess with it. That being said, I have lots of extra woofers and three extra seos24, so I could technically work on both versions at once as far as building them goes. I could then put them both in the same space and compare...not a true A/B, just because the size will dictate or ability to switch them, and each time they will need to be moved. It will, however, allow us to take measurements to compare and make subjective assesments as as well.

Holy $h!t, I'm thinking logically...something is wrong biggrin.gif

Jake - Let's get the dual 15s up and running and give them a go. There is a good chance those 'extra' woofers will disappear real quick once we give yours a listen. biggrin.gif Anyone on the fence at that point will have reason to jump in with a prototype design done.
post #986 of 1496
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorilla83 View Post

Jake - Let's get the dual 15s up and running and give them a go. There is a good chance those 'extra' woofers will disappear real quick once we give yours a listen. biggrin.gif Anyone on the fence at that point will have reason to jump in with a prototype design done.

I agree, that will probably be the case once we have them up and running. The fact that they could be upgraded to quads at anytime make that an easy choice too. My problem, and it's a silly one I admit, is that I have this "need" to know I have some ridiculously unnecessary speaker biggrin.gif

Now all that said, wether I end up going dual or quad, I will have 3 extra SEOS24 in the end. If someone wanted to follow suit and built some their own, they are readily available rather than having to wait for another pallet or pay the extra to get them from Polland as individual items.

Oh, and I thought that of all people, I could count on you to encourage me to do totally over the top, unecessary things audio biggrin.gif
post #987 of 1496
So this is basically the Noesis CD with a seos waveguide and better and bigger drivers? How much is the speaker to complete?
post #988 of 1496
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

So this is basically the Noesis CD with a seos waveguide and better and bigger drivers? How much is the speaker to complete?

Yep, my original thought was to try to top the Noesis for less money that it cost. From preliminary accounts, the seos24 should be the superior waveguide and the AE woofers should be an upgrade as well. Don't take it the wrong way, the Noesis is absolutely fantastic, and not lacking in quality..I just wanted to try to go further...plus the Noesis is full passive.

My total cost per cabinet, with the GB prices we got is $1300, including xover components for the passive coax section. without GBs, it would only be a hundred or so more.
post #989 of 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopShop1 View Post

Oh, and I thought that of all people, I could count on you to encourage me to do totally over the top, unecessary things audio biggrin.gif

You know me - I'm all about laughing at anything 'reasonable'. But I can tell you after hearing the Noesis cranked up under decent power as well as my Yorks with under a thousand watts of power - your 'base' (twin 15s) build should be nothing short of 'blow your hair back' insane in an indoor enviornment. You've got to remember you're probably going to keep these for a very long time. The fewer components and less complexity you have built into the design is going to be less troubleshooting down the line when you want to tweak or fix something. This is especially true when what you have already is going to be pound the ground stupid.
post #990 of 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopShop1 View Post

Yep, my original thought was to try to top the Noesis for less money that it cost. From preliminary accounts, the seos24 should be the superior waveguide and the AE woofers should be an upgrade as well. Don't take it the wrong way, the Noesis is absolutely fantastic, and not lacking in quality..I just wanted to try to go further...plus the Noesis is full passive.

My total cost per cabinet, with the GB prices we got is $1300, including xover components for the passive coax section. without GBs, it would only be a hundred or so more.

Ridiculous
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