or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › If you had $5000 to spend on subs and speakers what would you do ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If you had $5000 to spend on subs and speakers what would you do ? - Page 5

post #121 of 172
^^ great post.

over design by about 10db or so is a decent rule of thumb.
post #122 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

^^ great post.

over design by about 10db or so is a decent rule of thumb.

When in doubt, quadruple. biggrin.gif
post #123 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by robotbunny View Post

This. If you're after really, really, good midrange capabilities definately.

Also, the Fusion-12 Tempests. MrSmithers built both the Tempests and the bwaslo TD12M and compared both, shoot him a pm.

After the TD-12/15 and 2226 designs I'm leaning toward taking the Deltalite II 2512 design over the others. I'm surprised it doesn't seem to be as popular as the Delta 12A (Karma), Pro-12A (Fusion) and 4012 (Alpha) kits.
post #124 of 172
^ Good choice. Low Qtc, low fs, high sesitivity driver for sure. Plus, for a trio, you're not breaking the bank either. You doing sealed or vented?

-Nate
post #125 of 172
^^agree. the deltalite ii 2512 has a very low normalized inductance and that should give it a very nice midrange. this is just a hunch, but it may be that the neo motor has more magnetic field strength than the others, so less coil is needed in the field to get the necessary bl.

as a result, whether intentional or not, 2512 has the best inductance behavior of the group. the impedance sweeps show this (the ideal behavior would be a flat line in the high frequencies), with the 4012ho being the worst, the delta pro12a and delta pro12a being somewhere in between, and the deltalite ii 2512 being the best. of course, with the 4012ho, you get more xmax, which is good if full range is the implementation. but for a "thx satellite" aka sealed box crossed at 80hz or so, the 2512 seems like a winner.

very interesting might be an MTM version that employs dual 2512's, as that would further cut distortion at all listening levels by about another 12db or so.
post #126 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

^^agree. the deltalite ii 2512 has a very low normalized inductance and that should give it a very nice midrange. this is just a hunch, but it may be that the neo motor has more magnetic field strength than the others, so less coil is needed in the field to get the necessary bl.

as a result, whether intentional or not, 2512 has the best inductance behavior of the group. the impedance sweeps show this (the ideal behavior would be a flat line in the high frequencies), with the 4012ho being the worst, the delta pro12a and delta pro12a being somewhere in between, and the deltalite ii 2512 being the best. of course, with the 4012ho, you get more xmax, which is good if full range is the implementation. but for a "thx satellite" aka sealed box crossed at 80hz or so, the 2512 seems like a winner.

very interesting might be an MTM version that employs dual 2512's, as that would further cut distortion at all listening levels by about another 12db or so.

I've had a fantasy of a seos 24 sandwiched between 2 pairs of 2512s.... In a massive 12 cubic foot box... 106db of sensitivity and 1kw of power handling... In a 36x60x12 box.... Flat black with black grills.... The monolith, if you will.... And I will only watch 2001ASO....
post #127 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stumbo View Post

I've had a fantasy of a seos 24 sandwiched between 2 pairs of 2512s.... In a massive 12 cubic foot box... 106db of sensitivity and 1kw of power handling... In a 36x60x12 box.... Flat black with black grills.... The monolith, if you will.... And I will only watch 2001ASO....

This is good. You should build this. Yes. It would be bad ass.
post #128 of 172
each doubling of the woofers increases sensitivity by about 3db, so 1x = 94, 2x = 97, 4x = 100.

the large center to center spacing would suggest a low crossover point and that means a potentially expensive c.d.

if the 24" seos is available in 1.4" throat then the faital pro hf144 or hf146 could work down to about 500hz or so, at least on paper, and they aren't too expensive.

http://www.parts-express.com/cat/horn-drivers/33?kg=976|3781&m=529
post #129 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

each doubling of the woofers increases sensitivity by about 3db, so 1x = 94, 2x = 97, 4x = 100.

Yup, the 2512 is 99.9db/w, so 2= 103db, 4=106db
Quote:
the large center to center spacing would suggest a low crossover point and that means a potentially expensive c.d.

if the 24" seos is available in 1.4" throat then the faital pro hf144 or hf146 could work down to about 500hz or so, at least on paper, and they aren't too expensive.

http://www.parts-express.com/cat/horn-drivers/33?kg=976|3781&m=529

I ran the deminsions and came up with 800hz based on the center of each woofer to the center of the CD, am I mistaken and should model based on the overall spacing from woofer to woofer?

Btw this is all speculation, my cheap thrills on reciever power are overkill as it is....
post #130 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Sorel View Post

I guess I "sort of" fall into the category of one who plays the SPL game, but let me explain: I listen at what I consider loud levels, reference for the most part, or maybe a touch below. I don't listen at excruciating levels despite the fact that many people believed so in the past. What concerns me is not the ability for a speaker to play super loud all of the time, but rather the dynamics of the system as a whole. There are passages in movies that are meant to scare the crap out of you, or otherwise excite you - sudden crashes, unexpected bombs, sub bass sounds, etc., and these passages are purposely recorded very "hot" in comparison to even something like reference level. If your system is good only up to reference level, then the extreme dynamics don't sound as extreme as they are meant to be, and for me personally, this is a let down. Speakers that can achieve those higher than normal levels without signs of dynamic compression (is "thermal compression" the correct term here?) can play back those rare, but oh so important passages with full impact, and the ability to do so can not be overstated.

I believe this to be true of home theater content and not so much of musical content, as most of the music I listen to does not have the dynamic range of the most dynamic movie sound tracks I have heard...YMMV.

I suggest that someone picking a speaker design should choose based on his particular listening level, and then add 25% or more level for headroom in order to be able to deliver those incredibly hot passages. For me it is not about having the ability to listen super loud *all* of the time, but rather to have the headroom to be able to play super loud, without signs of compression, when needed. As long as your speaker choice (and amplification, of course) can handle your normal level consistently, and still rise to the occasion when needed, then you have picked wisely.
Sounds good to me...easy and cheap...my style....smile.gif


I understand and appreciate well-produced dynamics as much as anyone, but there's a clear distinction between clean 100+db peaks and 130db playback and one doesn't necessarily require the latter for the former.

I would re-assert that in most rooms one doesn't require gigantic horn-loaded speakers to cleanly reproduce 85/105db (which most find to be VERY loud) playback levels...again, especially when properly crossed to a capable sub/sub system. I've found that many times this evolves from the "spl game" to the "headroom game' where people want/require output they will never use simply because they believe that it somehow equates to superior sound over other components that are operating within the range they were designed to...but lack 10, 20, or 30dbs of "headroom". Go figure. It's imperative to understand that I'm not talking about clipping amplifiers or pushing speakers beyond their limits, but simply operating them within their boundaries. It's kinda like someone saying a speaker 'needs a lot of power" to "sound good" when in reality it's likely rarely using more than a handful of watts and sounding fantastic...dynamics and all. Helps sell amplifiers I suppose.

Folks with very large rooms, elongated listening distances or those requiring huge SPL's should look elsewhere of course.


James
Edited by mastermaybe - 9/6/13 at 7:11am
post #131 of 172
"Yup, the 2512 is 99.9db/w, so 2= 103db, 4=106db"

well, let's blame the confusion of that one on eminence. one spec sheet lists mms as 37 grams, while the other lists 49 grams. that gives 2 db of difference in sensitivity.

inductance has come down a hair, while resistance has gone up a hair, so it appears that they switched to a slightly smaller wire.

the reported sensitivity of 99.9 is up around 1khz, so is a little high relative to the actual passband sensitivity.

another minor point is that as 106db sensitivity is approached, which iirc is 50% efficiency 1/2 space 1w, doubling up doesn't quite give the full 3db gain.
post #132 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

I understand and appreciate well-produced dynamics as much as anyone, but there's a clear distinction between clean 100+db peaks and 130db playback and one doesn't necessarily require the latter for the former.

I would re-assert that in most rooms one doesn't require gigantic horn-loaded speakers to cleanly reproduce 85/105db (which most find to be VERY loud) playback levels...again, especially when properly crossed to a capable sub/sub system. I've found that many times this evolves from the "spl game" to the "headroom game' where people want/require output they will never use simply because they believe that it somehow equates to superior sound over other components that are operating within the range they were designed to...but lack 10, 20, or 30dbs of "headroom". Go figure. It's imperative to understand that I'm not talking about clipping amplifiers or pushing speakers beyond their limits, but simply operating them within their boundaries. It's kinda like someone saying a speaker 'needs a lot of power" to "sound good" when in reality it's likely rarely using more than a handful of watts and sounding fantastic...dynamics and all. Helps sell amplifiers I suppose.

Folks with very large rooms, elongated listening distances or those requiring huge SPL's should look elsewhere of course.


James

The key here is what people define as clean. I know people think their speakers sound good but it is over 10% distortion at certain frequencies so even if it sounds good it is not clean. They would never know because they turn it up and say it sounds great. It has been shown that many people like distortion or don't mind it especially 2nd harmonics. Now if one loves their speakers at a certain level and it is not clean well then who cares, they are happy. The problem is when they assume it can handle whatever because they think it sounds good. The reason for headroom is to be really clean at reference. Now it is up to the individual to figure out what level is enough to achieve that. I have dual stacked speakers in a line array but just one would be enough, I use two for better vertical coverage and ease of not mounting a single up high.
post #133 of 172
^^ nice post mk.
post #134 of 172
I have an additional question. Can a SEOS design such as the Fusion-12 Tempest or the Fusion-15 Sentinel be turned on its side without detrimental effects? I only have 22" of space between my floor and the bottom of my screen, and I have zero space above the screen. The largest "stock" design that fits there is a Fusion-10 Max at 21" high, and I have not found any MTM design with drivers larger than 8". I have a pair of Lambda TD15M speakers hanging around doing nothing, so I would have liked to build an MTM using the new SEOS-15 waveguide, but I have not found anyone who done it already, and I am not qualified to do the design myself. Bill Waslo has a design which incorporates the SEOS-15 waveguide (with DNA-360 HF driver) and the TD15M woofer, but his crossover only handles a single woofer, not a dual woofer, and from what I have read, an MTM wouldn't work anyway because the waveguide is too large, thus making the spacing between woofers too large (if I understand correctly).
post #135 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Sorel View Post

I have an additional question. Can a SEOS design such as the Fusion-12 Tempest or the Fusion-15 Sentinel be turned on its side without detrimental effects? I only have 22" of space between my floor and the bottom of my screen, and I have zero space above the screen. The largest "stock" design that fits there is a Fusion-10 Max at 21" high, and I have not found any MTM design with drivers larger than 8". I have a pair of Lambda TD15M speakers hanging around doing nothing, so I would have liked to build an MTM using the new SEOS-15 waveguide, but I have not found anyone who done it already, and I am not qualified to do the design myself. Bill Waslo has a design which incorporates the SEOS-15 waveguide (with DNA-360 HF driver) and the TD15M woofer, but his crossover only handles a single woofer, not a dual woofer, and from what I have read, an MTM wouldn't work anyway because the waveguide is too large, thus making the spacing between woofers too large (if I understand correctly).

 

You can build the Tempest in a small sealed enclosure that is 21" high.

post #136 of 172
a good bit of the performance of something like the seos or other controlled directivity speaker is the off axis performance in the horizontal is quite nice.

when flipped on its side, all that get thrown out the window.

your best bet is to find two smaller woofers and place them under a seos. that will reduce the height quite a bit, yet won't mess up the most of the performance. I think tux has a design like that.
post #137 of 172
post #138 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

the "headroom game' where people want/require output they will never use simply because they believe that it somehow equates to superior sound over other components that are operating within the range they were designed to...but lack 10, 20, or 30dbs of "headroom".

PRECISELY. The easiest (and one of the only) ways to reduce IMD is to reduce cone travel, hence the need for 'gigantic' speakers.....

Having the dynamic headroom to reach an SPL target is MUCH DIFFERENT than reaching that target with high fidelity (low distortion). Many fail to grasp this. MK essentially said the same thing.

Don't think so? Post measurements of a low sensitivity speaker playing at 85db at the MLP and then at 105dB at the MLP, with distortion components. There is a reason graphs like this do not exist.

JSS
post #139 of 172
Thread Starter 
I am appreciating the great advice and opinions and information being provided !

Keep it coming

For a surround speaker question :

I want to do 11.2 ( I might only run 7)

But I also want to do 4 side speakers ( one column for first row and a second for second row ) in addition to the back speakers.

I'd like a footprint that could be hidden in a false wall column so 12" or 15" monsters are probably out. But I can design the column to easily accommodate a 8" or even 10" I think.

One thing that confuses me is dipole vs dipole vs direct. Also which speaker would be good for the sides and rears (I need 6)

???? Which SEOS design would be good choice to go with 12" or 15" LCR ???

I'd there a matching alternative for non SEOS options like Pi or whatever ??
post #140 of 172
Quote:
a good bit of the performance of something like the seos or other controlled directivity speaker is the off axis performance in the horizontal is quite nice.

when flipped on its side, all that get thrown out the window.

your best bet is to find two smaller woofers and place them under a seos. that will reduce the height quite a bit, yet won't mess up the most of the performance. I think tux has a design like that.
Thanks! Tux's design looks great! I will build it as soon as all the details are complete and available...smile.gif

Mfusick...you should check out that design too. It is very flexible and may serve you well for both mains and surrounds in your proposed system.
post #141 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

The key here is what people define as clean. I know people think their speakers sound good but it is over 10% distortion at certain frequencies so even if it sounds good it is not clean. They would never know because they turn it up and say it sounds great. It has been shown that many people like distortion or don't mind it especially 2nd harmonics. Now if one loves their speakers at a certain level and it is not clean well then who cares, they are happy. The problem is when they assume it can handle whatever because they think it sounds good. The reason for headroom is to be really clean at reference. Now it is up to the individual to figure out what level is enough to achieve that. I have dual stacked speakers in a line array but just one would be enough, I use two for better vertical coverage and ease of not mounting a single up high.

Of course (re the definition of "clean"). But as I've said, in most rooms, at most distances, smaller (read: not really "small" by AVS standards, lmao), quality commercial loudspeakers and amplifiers should be able to sound quite clean at the levels I prescribed.

What quality, properly-appointed speaker crossed at 80hz cannot produce 85db output at 10-12 feet with 4-12 watts of input? Ditto for an amp? Now go ahead and ask the same question for the peaks...you really shouldn't be running into clipping or real compression issues at these levels so long as a modicum of scrutiny is applied in the speaker and avr selection process. I for one certainly don't sense any strain coming from my speakers (although I haven't run an THD measurements on them), which again is partly the product of a 10 foot listening distance and reasonably robust, properly-crossed, loudspeakers...although certainly not huge or expensive.

I suppose there are many patently inadequate or poorly constructed audio rigs out there, but I still maintain that you do no need gigantic speakers or external amplifiers to reach "clean" reference-level playback. A stout (let's say "THX-like") avr, 5 solid speakers, properly crossed, and 1-2 very capable subwoofers should do most very nicely in typical ~350 sq ft living rooms.


James
Edited by mastermaybe - 9/9/13 at 7:01am
post #142 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxmercy View Post

PRECISELY. The easiest (and one of the only) ways to reduce IMD is to reduce cone travel, hence the need for 'gigantic' speakers.....

Having the dynamic headroom to reach an SPL target is MUCH DIFFERENT than reaching that target with high fidelity (low distortion). Many fail to grasp this. MK essentially said the same thing.

Don't think so? Post measurements of a low sensitivity speaker playing at 85db at the MLP and then at 105dB at the MLP, with distortion components. There is a reason graphs like this do not exist.

JSS

The problem here is I'm not speaking about 85db sens loudspeakers which would (usually) be a poor choice...but one has the choice available to them and people certainly do make poor choices.

"Having the dynamic headroom to reach an SPL target is MUCH DIFFERENT than reaching that target with high fidelity (low distortion)."

The goal is "clean" playback at a specified spl...the bar has not moved. If that is the goal, then it is patently immaterial whether you have 5 or 50dbs left on the table..."clean" 105db peaks are not being ignored and I'd welcome measurements of my system anytime. biggrin.gif

Onward, loudspeaker sensitivity would not necessarily have anything to do with distortion measurements, although that could (and is many times) very well be the reality. You could have an extremely capable 85db sens speaker and gobs of power onhand and easily reproduce your asserted volume levels. Although that's generally not the course taken, it's still horses for courses. But again, what percentage of loudspeakers are really that low and further, who on earth would be choosing them for an HT application? confused.gif Probably a poor choice and not one I'm speaking of.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 9/9/13 at 7:05am
post #143 of 172
I agree mastermaybe, it all depends on volume and LP distances. After tweaking so many times I have come to realize most people don't realize how much distortion there is even though it sounds good to them. I am curious to what distortion levels people listen to at whatever level they chose. Most speakers can not handle their peak power specs, or all the power they quote. Some post conservatively. My S-5000's were rated at 92-94 dBs and 400 watts. To me they always sound very dynamic and much more than their specs would indicate(only compared to JBL pro monster speakers). The reason is a member sent me a review Don Keele performed on them a ways back and he could send a 10000 watt signal into them! They could easily handle 2000 watts so they could play louder than specs indicate.

Anyways, I remember someone posting how clean their B&W diamonds were at 90 dBs and he was hitting around 6% THD at a certain midrange frequency(vocals). To him these speakers were so real and clear and that was his level of clean. It sound awesome to him. If he tried to crank on these I wonder how much THD would creep in at say 100 dBs. BTW, I listen at reference but do think 100 dBs of constant music is louder because on average it is. Most movies are cruising at 85 dBs with dialog.
post #144 of 172
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Sorel View Post

Thanks! Tux's design looks great! I will build it as soon as all the details are complete and available...smile.gif

Mfusick...you should check out that design too. It is very flexible and may serve you well for both mains and surrounds in your proposed system.

I did check it out and it looks interesting !

I'm leaning toward a SEOS 12" or 15" LCR and some smaller SEOS like 10" or 8" for surrounds ( I need 10 speakers for surround only to do 11.2 with double rows of side speakers.) I am going to wire for front heights, and front wides in addition to normal back speakers and two rows of sides speakers but I am not sure if I will build the 4 extra heights and wides up front or not. I'd like to incorporate all my speakers that are not in the front behind my screen wall into false wall columns in my theater so planning ahead of construction is critical and I would like a uniform look to it all. My wides would probably be inside the first front column, the next two would be the sides. The backs I might just do in the back, but we will see.

What I have had a hard time with is understanding differences between this particular SEOS design and that particular SEOS design in terms of output, distortion, SPL ... so I can relate it all relative to price. I am just assuming something like a more expensive 12" or 15" with DNA360 plays louder than something with the smaller tweeter and woofer - but I honestly I have never heard any of them so this might no even be the case. There is not a lot of information on how they compare to each other, so I would appreciate some help and guidance on these aspects biggrin.gif

It seems like people don't want to offer up much thought on this. I understand they are different designs with different parts by different designers- and no modest designer or veteran that knows everyone wants to stand up and say this design is best, or that design sucks. I get that. I also get that all they designs are probably pretty good- and more like each other than different too. They all use the same family of tweets- and waveguides- so I would guess they all have great and similar sound.

I am only trying to calibrate my compass; is there a SEOS design that is considered a champion ? And why. ?

If no one wants to answer that question I would really appreciate some advice on this:

-Which design and woofer/tweet combo gives high SPL and low distortion ? (is one better or worse than another? Which one and why ?) If you were going for absolute maximum SPL without sounding bad (distortion) - which design would be the best choice?
and,
-Flip side, if you did not require very high SPL, but rather wanted great sound quality at reference or even below reference which model or design would be a good choice?

I am trying to understand the various models and make sense of it all. Is one tweeter or woofer better than another? (parts) ? Is one design better or different than another in any specific area because of design or component choices ? If someone was going to run 4 x 18" subs is there any advantage to going with a larger drive like a 12" or 15" for LCR ? Worth it ?
post #145 of 172
Hey mfusick, I don't think anyone is reluctant to answer those questions. But it might not be a straight forward answer. For instance, there's lots of reasons why going to a larger 15" LCR is worth it. But it doesn't necessarily relate to the number/size of your subs. And they all play loud with low distortion.

What exactly are your trying to understand?
post #146 of 172
some of the designs are tuned a little lower for more of a full range design.

most of the designs use a compression driver that is up to snuff with the woofer section, so...

most of the differences come down to the woofer selection.

the best would be the td15m or jbl 2226h as they are the best woofers. they employ copper sleeves and/or shorting rings to reduce inductance and linearize and reduce distortion.

the lower crossover point of the big drivers put more sound in the compression driver where it sound better as you get into the 1-2khz region.

as for the 12" set, the best is probably the deltalite ii 2512 if crossed over at 80hz.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1291022/hey-guys-we-need-a-little-rallying-here/7440#post_23299022

none of these are in the official lineup because the official lineup tends to focus on the best bang for the buck...
post #147 of 172
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post

Hey mfusick, I don't think anyone is reluctant to answer those questions. But it might not be a straight forward answer. For instance, there's lots of reasons why going to a larger 15" LCR is worth it. But it doesn't necessarily relate to the number/size of your subs. And they all play loud with low distortion.

What exactly are your trying to understand?

Well ,

Specifically in this example what is the benefit of a 12" or 15" (with 4 subs) ? We can start here:D
I guess I am really looking for some education as well as opinions.
post #148 of 172
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

some of the designs are tuned a little lower for more of a full range design.

most of the designs use a compression driver that is up to snuff with the woofer section, so...

most of the differences come down to the woofer selection.

the best would be the td15m or jbl 2226h as they are the best woofers. they employ copper sleeves and/or shorting rings to reduce inductance and linearize and reduce distortion.

the lower crossover point of the big drivers put more sound in the compression driver where it sound better as you get into the 1-2khz region.

as for the 12" set, the best is probably the deltalite ii 2512 if crossed over at 80hz.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1291022/hey-guys-we-need-a-little-rallying-here/7440#post_23299022

none of these are in the official lineup because the official lineup tends to focus on the best bang for the buck...


Thanks for this helpful reply biggrin.gif I'll check out that link you gave and report back.biggrin.gif
post #149 of 172
The larger 15" woofer has more Sd, so usually it can handle 80hz more easily than a 12". It also holds directivity lower in frequency. The negative is that it is getting near it's cone break up so should be crossed a little lower and that can strain the CD, but is usually ok. And it's quite wide. The subwoofers don't really affect anything other than 4x18 is really high output, so the 15" might keep up better than the 12". But the 12" could probably keep up just fine, so not really an issue. The 15" will just do it better.
post #150 of 172
Since I am not the techie type, I will try to answer Mfusick's question from a layman's point of view - there is no "best" design! Since each individual's wants and needs are different, different designs will fit the bill better than others. In your example, you mentioned that you wanted to limit the size of the surrounds to a 10" woofer. That is a design constraint which causes one design (such as Tux's new design) to work better than, let's say, a TD15M design which would require a cabinet that is significantly wider than Tux's. In my personal opinion, I like to match ALL speakers as much as possible, so if I constrained myself to 10" woofers in my surrounds, I would prefer to use the same 10" woofers in my LCR speakers in order to timbre match as well as possible. Does it make a difference - probably not, but it is just something on my "desired" list.

Now how about the person who wants something that has a high WAF factor? Well, maybe big SEOS horns in a big box might be a problem, but some wives may consider smaller horns in a taller, thin package to be cute - who knows.

From my research, it seems like the AE TD15M and TD12M are still among the best woofers made, so if size and looks are not a constraint, then a SEOS 15 horn paired with a TD15M, a suitable HF driver, and a well designed crossover, might be the "best", but I assure you that the surrounds will be big and heavy to mount (I know this through personal experience smile.gif ), and if your ceiling is not high enough you might have problems with people hitting their heads.

The point of all this is that there isn't any one design that works best for everybody, just designs that work best for certain rooms, certain WAF, certain output expectations, certain sensitivity needs, etc. This is why I brought up Tux's new design to you - it seems to fit *your* needs better than most designs I have seen to date - high sensitivity, high output, relatively narrow package, great flexibility in configuration, and a great value for what you will get - AND you will also likely attain a very high degree of timbre matching throughout your system, something you will most likely lose if you use larger/different woofers in your LCRs.

Right now I am personally interested in Tux's design even though my current system is almost perfect (IMHO of course). I want to try out a new center that removes more of the spoken dialog from the horn and puts it into the midrange cone speakers just to compare to my current setup. I know it won't be timbre matched with the rest of the system, but I want to try it anyway...I just have a gut feeling that this is going to be a GREAT design, and might even launch a new breed of SEOS design concepts!

BTW, if you don't match ALL of the speakers in your system, I would strongly recommend matching the LCRs as much as possible, and then match all of the surrounds as much as possible separately. Try to match the woofers in all speakers, just in different sizes, as their tonal characteristics *should* be relatively similar. Personally (once again), I would stick with the basic same design from the same designer, just with different size drivers, waveguides, etc., as the designer would probably design his crossovers with similar sounding design goals.

Heck, the more I talk about this, the more I believe that Tux's new design is perfect for you...tongue.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › If you had $5000 to spend on subs and speakers what would you do ?