This sounds way too good to be true... but if it's real, it's a steal (I would get their phone number and call first):
https://www.charmbuild.online/detai...ls-Sub-Woofer-8-Ohm-Sp3a_woy7b7a84d8548c.html
5 in stock here but pricey (pricing shown may include VAT tax which would not apply for export market):
https://www.soundimports.eu/en/peerless-by-tymphany-sls-p830669.html
Available here for $139 each:
https://www.wagneronline.com.au/pee...rivers/audio-speakers-pa/830669-7158/3252/pd/
6 in stock here:
https://www.hificollective.co.uk/catalog/peerless-830669-woofer.html
https://wilmslowaudio.co.uk/peerless-51/peerless-sls-830669-diameter315mm
https://www.charmbuild.online/detai...ls-Sub-Woofer-8-Ohm-Sp3a_woy7b7a84d8548c.html
5 in stock here but pricey (pricing shown may include VAT tax which would not apply for export market):
https://www.soundimports.eu/en/peerless-by-tymphany-sls-p830669.html
Available here for $139 each:
https://www.wagneronline.com.au/pee...rivers/audio-speakers-pa/830669-7158/3252/pd/
6 in stock here:
https://www.hificollective.co.uk/catalog/peerless-830669-woofer.html
https://wilmslowaudio.co.uk/peerless-51/peerless-sls-830669-diameter315mm
Shipping is crazy at most of those places. I order from HIFICollective a bit and last time I checked it was going to be over $300 for a pair.
Wilmslow doesn't deliver to the US.
Wagner won't give a shipping cost, but it's nearly $300 without.
SoundImports is about $265 shipped.
Charmbuild sounds like a scam. I googled the address they list and it doesn't exist.
I appreciate you providing the links. I'm probably going to rethink what I'm going to build at this point.
Wilmslow doesn't deliver to the US.
Wagner won't give a shipping cost, but it's nearly $300 without.
SoundImports is about $265 shipped.
Charmbuild sounds like a scam. I googled the address they list and it doesn't exist.
I appreciate you providing the links. I'm probably going to rethink what I'm going to build at this point.
My friend Stephan built a pair of Ripol subs using SB Audience woofers. With FS of 44Hz versus 27Hz for the SLS's, they roll off a bit higher but don't need as much EQ and they cost less and they they sound REALLY GOOD. They would even fit my existing Ripol enclosure design with only one small modification to increase the magnet hole from 5 1/2" to 5 13/16" diameter 
http://www.sbaudience.com/index.php/products/open-baffle-drivers/bianco-12ob150/
http://www.sbaudience.com/index.php/products/open-baffle-drivers/bianco-12ob150/
Last edited:
I just emailed Parts Express, urging them to reconsider stocking the Peerless SLS-P830669 woofer again.
I explained the increasing demand for these woofers for Ripols, and how Part Express could up their price and no one would complain.
Perhaps Parts Express will reconsider if enough of us contact them about it. Just a thought....
I explained the increasing demand for these woofers for Ripols, and how Part Express could up their price and no one would complain.
Perhaps Parts Express will reconsider if enough of us contact them about it. Just a thought....
Thank you for all the info in this thread!
I'm also (slowly..) considering Ripoles for my next project. The two SB Audience open baffle woofers are high on my favourites list, too. Even the BIANCO 18SW450 looks interesting, despite it's low Qts (0,38). I like the low fs and reasonable price, and will use digital filtering anyway.
But there are two other hot candidates that might be not so well known: Redcatt OBW15 is designed for open baffle use and is really cheap (here in Europe). Would Qts 0,75 be a little too high for a precise sub?
Even more tempting is the Redcatt SW15.01X8. Still good price, really low fs (21 Hz!) and ideal Qts of 0,48.
Redcatts are availble at oaudio.de
The owner, Nik Baur, is a big fan of dipoles, and afaik he had some drivers developped specificly for open baffle speakers.
Since I might follow Siegfried Linkwitz's recommendation to complement a pair of dipole subs with a closed box monopole sub that can be added for some extra punch - should the mood and music call for it - the SW15.0X8 would give me the chance to use the same driver for both setups. Yes, using this 15" in CB calls for a really large enclosure (Vas is 315 l), especially if I aim for Qtb below 0,7 for best impulse response. But the reasonable driver price makes a compound CB with half the volume realistic.
Has anyone tried the "Linkwitz combination" of Ri/Dipole and CB subs together?
(Just to clarify: I run a digital setup already, so I plan to use different overall settings for each scenario (dipoles alone and dipoles+monopole combined) - with a convolver driving the speakers that means just loading a different filter set. Not intending to just add the CB and get bloated bass.)
I'm also (slowly..) considering Ripoles for my next project. The two SB Audience open baffle woofers are high on my favourites list, too. Even the BIANCO 18SW450 looks interesting, despite it's low Qts (0,38). I like the low fs and reasonable price, and will use digital filtering anyway.
But there are two other hot candidates that might be not so well known: Redcatt OBW15 is designed for open baffle use and is really cheap (here in Europe). Would Qts 0,75 be a little too high for a precise sub?
Even more tempting is the Redcatt SW15.01X8. Still good price, really low fs (21 Hz!) and ideal Qts of 0,48.
Redcatts are availble at oaudio.de
The owner, Nik Baur, is a big fan of dipoles, and afaik he had some drivers developped specificly for open baffle speakers.
Since I might follow Siegfried Linkwitz's recommendation to complement a pair of dipole subs with a closed box monopole sub that can be added for some extra punch - should the mood and music call for it - the SW15.0X8 would give me the chance to use the same driver for both setups. Yes, using this 15" in CB calls for a really large enclosure (Vas is 315 l), especially if I aim for Qtb below 0,7 for best impulse response. But the reasonable driver price makes a compound CB with half the volume realistic.
Has anyone tried the "Linkwitz combination" of Ri/Dipole and CB subs together?
(Just to clarify: I run a digital setup already, so I plan to use different overall settings for each scenario (dipoles alone and dipoles+monopole combined) - with a convolver driving the speakers that means just loading a different filter set. Not intending to just add the CB and get bloated bass.)
@Shefffield,
I think that the Ripole is the best compromise for an infra-bass extension, which is deep, neat, fast and tight, combined with a small size unit. You don't really need anything else to go with it, IMHO...
But of course, it depends on what result you are expecting for...
T
I think that the Ripole is the best compromise for an infra-bass extension, which is deep, neat, fast and tight, combined with a small size unit. You don't really need anything else to go with it, IMHO...
But of course, it depends on what result you are expecting for...
T
Jazzman here,
I recently built a newer pair (below) that are 1/2" smaller in height & depth and 1/8" narrower width. That's not a huge change but it made a big difference aesthetically (much prettier). I haven't done any audio measurements to compare them sonically but I'm not hearing a difference. So--I'm thinking I could have made them even smaller without sacrificing much sonically.
I have a drawing and parts list if anyone wants them... just PM me.
Last edited:
BTW; the external dimensions of my previous version was a bit larger than 15 x 15 x 13.
The ones shown above are 13 1/8" wide x 14 3/4" depth x 15 1/8" height.
I may build some smaller ones if I get bored for something to do this winter.
With 12" woofers, the width needs to remain 13 1/8" (or smaller if the magnets can protrude further out).
But I see no reason why the depth and height couldn't be 1/2" smaller (max would be 3/4").
The ones shown above are 13 1/8" wide x 14 3/4" depth x 15 1/8" height.
I may build some smaller ones if I get bored for something to do this winter.
With 12" woofers, the width needs to remain 13 1/8" (or smaller if the magnets can protrude further out).
But I see no reason why the depth and height couldn't be 1/2" smaller (max would be 3/4").
Last edited:
Yes. I tested with smaller speaker formats :
The problem is not the speaker format, but the subwoofer module format : it is difficult to find a module which is performant and size-convienient...
The small module that I used above offered poor crossover facility : not low enough cut-off frequency and not steep enough slope, so the results were unfortunately not met.
But when connected to my serious ATOHM S-250 module, the one installed on my OMEGA RIPOLE 2x12", the results were simply amazing, despite the size ! Even small, the Ripole principle can indeed work : I had the proof here - assuming you can find a correct miniature integrated Sub module... Not easy...
T
Last edited:
@Shefffield,
I think that the Ripole is the best compromise for an infra-bass extension, which is deep, neat, fast and tight, combined with a small size unit. You don't really need anything else to go with it, IMHO...
But of course, it depends on what result you are expecting for...
T
Thanks for your comment!
I've built two bass dipoles already: a simple U-shape open baffle with Visaton W400S that improved a friend's home studio (he's mixing a jazz band) and a W-dipole à la Linkwitz with a pair of Monacor 15". So I am well aware of the qualities of dipole bass units, and that's why I chose this concept as my subwoofer solution for the next build.
While the resolution and clarity of dipole basses are fun, I do sometimes like the punch and heft of monopole basses. If the music calls for it (rock/metal), it's just more fun.
Regarding my thoughts about low fs drivers for Ripoles:
I am aware that a driver with fs 21 Hz is not necessary. I understand that a Ripole lowers fb way below anything that is necessary. However, this combination appeals to me because it opens a possibility to run the drivers above the system resonance - just like it's common with mid and treble drivers. Can't be a bad thing. (Basically the opposite approach to URPS, under-resonance subwoofers that use extremely small closed enclosures to move fb above the used frequency band. It's reported to work well, but comes with an even heavier loss in efficiency than dipole setups because of the 12 dB/oct fall-off under fb that needs heavy-handed EQing.)
I use FIR convolving with extremely steep filters, and a subsonic filter reliably cuts off everything below 15 Hz. Or whatever I chose as lowest frequency.
Your mni Ripoles are sexy! Should be great on my desk to support the monitors.
You might want to check the amp modules from Sure Electronics (Wonsom in some markets) to drive them.
I prefer to avoid exciting the chamber resonance with a steep crossover set least one octave below it. As applied to a RiPol with 12" woofers, this would put the crossover frequency no higher than about 100Hz.
As applied to smaller RiPol's with let's say 10" or 8" woofers, the chamber's resonance would occur at a higher frequency, allowing a higher crossover and more usable bandwidth below it. In this sense; smaller is better
By the same logic; a larger enclosure using [let's say] 15" or 18" woofers would have a much lower chamber resonance and thus require a much lower crossover, leaving very little usable bandwidth below it.
For my tastes; a pair of RiPol's with 12" woofers provides suitable output at my listening volume, but smaller ones might not. So when I mentioned building smaller ones in my previous post; the intent would be to retain the 12" woofers but further reduce the enclosure size (I still have a bit of leeway there).
Of course; one could apply a notch filter for the resonance and then use any size woofers and any desired crossover frequency. The chamber resonance would be pretty loud, and I can't say how well a notch filter would tame it because I've not needed one with my configuration.
As applied to smaller RiPol's with let's say 10" or 8" woofers, the chamber's resonance would occur at a higher frequency, allowing a higher crossover and more usable bandwidth below it. In this sense; smaller is better
By the same logic; a larger enclosure using [let's say] 15" or 18" woofers would have a much lower chamber resonance and thus require a much lower crossover, leaving very little usable bandwidth below it.
For my tastes; a pair of RiPol's with 12" woofers provides suitable output at my listening volume, but smaller ones might not. So when I mentioned building smaller ones in my previous post; the intent would be to retain the 12" woofers but further reduce the enclosure size (I still have a bit of leeway there).
Of course; one could apply a notch filter for the resonance and then use any size woofers and any desired crossover frequency. The chamber resonance would be pretty loud, and I can't say how well a notch filter would tame it because I've not needed one with my configuration.
Last edited:
Aw @CharlieM... I already posted it ? OK I did not remember - my apologies !
Moreover, I noted that you are the Guy behind "Jazzman" : I went several times to your website when I was searching input about Ripole Subwoofers. The valuable informations I found in your web pages may be broadcast IMHO, so I quoted you and mentioned the link to your website on mine :
Well, I found more practical for me to have a standalone Ripole unit, just like any commercial subwoofer, so incorporate the subwoofer module was logical, in a way that would not increase too much the overal dimensions, hence that "omega" placement of the internal panels, and the name "OMEGA Ripole"...
For this the ATOHM subwoofer modules are perfect, since they have their proper cap or cab to protect and make them tight from the acoustic chambers of the speakers, where high pressure exists, and may spread out by holes of the sub, making adverse noises...
T
Thanks @Shefffield !
T
Moreover, I noted that you are the Guy behind "Jazzman" : I went several times to your website when I was searching input about Ripole Subwoofers. The valuable informations I found in your web pages may be broadcast IMHO, so I quoted you and mentioned the link to your website on mine :
Well, I found more practical for me to have a standalone Ripole unit, just like any commercial subwoofer, so incorporate the subwoofer module was logical, in a way that would not increase too much the overal dimensions, hence that "omega" placement of the internal panels, and the name "OMEGA Ripole"...
For this the ATOHM subwoofer modules are perfect, since they have their proper cap or cab to protect and make them tight from the acoustic chambers of the speakers, where high pressure exists, and may spread out by holes of the sub, making adverse noises...
T
Thanks @Shefffield !
T
Thanks @CharlieM aka "Jazzman" !
I know that there's a Guy in Germany ( via DIY Audio Projects Forum) who made his copy of my design in 3D printing :
As you can read above, he uses the same sub amp as I used, and draw the same conclusion about it...
My Micro and Mini OMEGA Ripole are now dismantled and the MDF cab projects have gone to recycling center. The result was inconclusive because of the poor performances of the sub module, but If I could find a serious- performance-super-compact one, why not rebuilding a Micro OMEGA ? For the moment, I did not found a satisfactory offer in that field, unfortunately...
T
Looks like you're gonna have to take up building a compact class D amp/crossover module
Aw, this is beyond my competence !
T