Further might be the issue of midbass localization / "imaging" at XOs that high, even with multiple woofers? That's well into the range of fundamentals and even low order harmonics of bass stringed instruments, that depending on the content's mixing one would hope not to shift size and location with higher order harmonics.
I think Bob might be alluding to budget pre-fab units likely to be considered by DIYers not wanting to bother with building their own, or assuming that under $150 per unit could be sufficient. Of the few commercial subs that I've heard selling for under $600, his description might be considered graciously optimistic. OTOH, yes a DIY woofer can perform superbly -
One of my pet peeves is the term "sub" - is it really one when you're going that high - or does it just mean "below whatever frequency I elect to roll of the mains" - regardless of some nebulous standard?
" Where's the goat?" !!
Hi Talaerts,
Yup, for the classics ( I still love the original Jurassic Park...!) you need it loud, or at least very dynamic ie speach at life like conversational level, then the ability to add enough dynamic range on top to make you jump when the guns go off or the goats leg hits your screen!!
Hey Bob,
I would like to point out an important point.
It is not the sub woofers fault wimpy full rangers cant reach down to the 60Hz THX recomended crossover point for home cinema.
The THX standard is accepted internationally as the reference specification for home cinema equipment. It us up to the equipment manufacturers to meet that spec. If you cant meet that spec dont blame the spec...!
By defination a " Sub Woofer" is designed to play frequencies BELOW that of the woofer....Not above the woofer!!
Sub woofers are not designed to play cello, male vocals and left hand piano etc. Sub woofers are designed to play Below the 80 Hz threshold where it becomes easy to locate the sub's position.
I have found that 60 Hz crossover is the best compromise in most well designed home systems.
Cheers
Derek.
Hi Talaerts,
Yup, for the classics ( I still love the original Jurassic Park...!) you need it loud, or at least very dynamic ie speach at life like conversational level, then the ability to add enough dynamic range on top to make you jump when the guns go off or the goats leg hits your screen!!
Hey Bob,
I would like to point out an important point.
It is not the sub woofers fault wimpy full rangers cant reach down to the 60Hz THX recomended crossover point for home cinema.
The THX standard is accepted internationally as the reference specification for home cinema equipment. It us up to the equipment manufacturers to meet that spec. If you cant meet that spec dont blame the spec...!
By defination a " Sub Woofer" is designed to play frequencies BELOW that of the woofer....Not above the woofer!!
Sub woofers are not designed to play cello, male vocals and left hand piano etc. Sub woofers are designed to play Below the 80 Hz threshold where it becomes easy to locate the sub's position.
I have found that 60 Hz crossover is the best compromise in most well designed home systems.
Cheers
Derek.
Absolutely it's a problem with multi-subs. As much as I prefer multi-subs, this is a major drawback. One of my three subs is at the far rear-right corner of my room, and at a 90hz xo there's enough localized sound coming from it at some instances that it draws my attention to it! Not good. So I plan to low pass that sub around 60
If you gotta xo around 150hz, I suggest using stereo subwoofers. From left and right. Or better yet, three subs left/center/right. Nothing towards the rear. The surrounds won't sound wrong doing this IMO.
Older driver, but can go pretty loud...
For single driver solution, my inclination would be to recommend the Mark Audio Alpair 10.2 (or upcoming 10.3) as Chrisb has already done. Or on a budget the CHR-70.3 with subs crossed at 80 Hz (Bill Poster's recommendation).
However, for crossing below 80 Hz and with the ability to be more dynamic, the Alpair 12 metal cone (previous gen of Alpair 12P paper cone) can be an option. It seems to be available at lower price from below vendor, and that would make it within OPs stated budget:
http://oaudio.de/Loudspeaker-drivers/Markaudio:::127_165.html
There are book shelf designs at P10’s site. The Studio Monitor (DBR) design has good LF response, but it will be a pretty large and heavy cabinet (56cm x 28cm x 35cm) – though within max size stipulated by OP .
http://www.frugal-phile.com/boxlib/woden/MarkAudio-A12-DBR-290610.pdf
A more compact option is the P10 Marken-12 CGR box, which does not go as low, but has more articulate mid-bass and more forward sounding.
Dave (P10) has a center design AFAIK, and he might have modeling done for a sealed box also (not sure).
For single driver solution, my inclination would be to recommend the Mark Audio Alpair 10.2 (or upcoming 10.3) as Chrisb has already done. Or on a budget the CHR-70.3 with subs crossed at 80 Hz (Bill Poster's recommendation).
However, for crossing below 80 Hz and with the ability to be more dynamic, the Alpair 12 metal cone (previous gen of Alpair 12P paper cone) can be an option. It seems to be available at lower price from below vendor, and that would make it within OPs stated budget:
http://oaudio.de/Loudspeaker-drivers/Markaudio:::127_165.html
There are book shelf designs at P10’s site. The Studio Monitor (DBR) design has good LF response, but it will be a pretty large and heavy cabinet (56cm x 28cm x 35cm) – though within max size stipulated by OP .
http://www.frugal-phile.com/boxlib/woden/MarkAudio-A12-DBR-290610.pdf
A more compact option is the P10 Marken-12 CGR box, which does not go as low, but has more articulate mid-bass and more forward sounding.
Dave (P10) has a center design AFAIK, and he might have modeling done for a sealed box also (not sure).
If you've used the Aurasounds or Dayton Nd series then I guess you speak from experience. Personally thought wd be v suitable in some HT setups, when u think there will be around 8 drivers being used in a 5.1 for example
Small drivers
Hi Bill Poster,
I have only used a 5 inch Dayton driver, a parts express special from a couple of years ago, cant remember the model number but they were good value even with shipping, got 8 drivers for about $100 plus about $40 shipping.
Have not tried Aurasound at all.
I have only experimented with European drivers like Beyma, Audax, Focal, Peerless, Scan Speak, Seas and PHL, plus some UK drivers like Volt, ATC and Precision Devices.
As a general rule, I think that Sd of 350 ( approx 10 inch driver) per channel is good enough for medium sized rooms and 550 Sd ( 12 inch driver) for larger home cinema rooms. This is only where you crossover to a sub or subs at the 60Hz to 80Hz.
If you are using full rangers with no subs then you really need a minimum of 800Sd to 900 Sd to get good results.
Even with 16 drivers ( 4.5 inch BMR's) per channel I feel the benefit with subs.
For music forget the subs, it sounds way better with straight stereo and no AV amp at all, just a stereo power amp being driven from a Lap top running JRiver and using the Eq.
Cheers
Derek.
Hi Bill Poster,
I have only used a 5 inch Dayton driver, a parts express special from a couple of years ago, cant remember the model number but they were good value even with shipping, got 8 drivers for about $100 plus about $40 shipping.
Have not tried Aurasound at all.
I have only experimented with European drivers like Beyma, Audax, Focal, Peerless, Scan Speak, Seas and PHL, plus some UK drivers like Volt, ATC and Precision Devices.
As a general rule, I think that Sd of 350 ( approx 10 inch driver) per channel is good enough for medium sized rooms and 550 Sd ( 12 inch driver) for larger home cinema rooms. This is only where you crossover to a sub or subs at the 60Hz to 80Hz.
If you are using full rangers with no subs then you really need a minimum of 800Sd to 900 Sd to get good results.
Even with 16 drivers ( 4.5 inch BMR's) per channel I feel the benefit with subs.
For music forget the subs, it sounds way better with straight stereo and no AV amp at all, just a stereo power amp being driven from a Lap top running JRiver and using the Eq.
Cheers
Derek.
Absolutely it's a problem with multi-subs. As much as I prefer multi-subs, this is a major drawback. One of my three subs is at the far rear-right corner of my room, and at a 90hz xo there's enough localized sound coming from it at some instances that it draws my attention to it! Not good. So I plan to low pass that sub around 60
If you gotta xo around 150hz, I suggest using stereo subwoofers. From left and right. Or better yet, three subs left/center/right. Nothing towards the rear. The surrounds won't sound wrong doing this IMO.
If I interpret Derek's comments - "Sub" and 150Hz XO might be considered contradictory?
How many consumer surround processors can accommodate XO to stereo woofers for L/R mains in the range contemplated above that would arguably allow "full range" drivers to perform acceptably to meet standards as rigorous as THX AND true LFE channel at the 60-80Hz range?
That seems like a lotta work for an octave and bit of grunt -
for many of us that watch for story telling and can enjoy at well below theatrical sensory assault levels without apologies, certainly not worth the effort - but I guess there's no such thing as too much Overkill? (sorry, couldn't resist)
I think at 150hz, as long as the bass is in the front, it doesn't have to be stereo. Yes, I've contradicted myself. I should have said, "If you gotta xo around 150hz, I suggest using two subwoofers." If you have two (or 3) subs up in the front near the mains, you won't get localization. And they can be mixed mono too. It's not what I would want, but not a big deal.
Overall I'd agree with you Chris, just turn it down or use a full ranger that can do 100hz or rethink the whole thing. Every situation requires a different application. My TV setup up stairs uses my old EL70s full range with an 8" sub filling in from 70hz down. It's absolutely wonderful in that application. Downstairs... totally different situation, totally different application.
I'm not sure what you don't like about the word sub though. Would you prefer "below-mains-woofer-playing-modular-constructed-separately-powered-speaker"?
Overall I'd agree with you Chris, just turn it down or use a full ranger that can do 100hz or rethink the whole thing. Every situation requires a different application. My TV setup up stairs uses my old EL70s full range with an 8" sub filling in from 70hz down. It's absolutely wonderful in that application. Downstairs... totally different situation, totally different application.
I'm not sure what you don't like about the word sub though. Would you prefer "below-mains-woofer-playing-modular-constructed-separately-powered-speaker"?
I'm not sure what you don't like about the word sub though. Would you prefer "below-mains-woofer-playing-modular-constructed-separately-powered-speaker"?
it's just that if there was a consensus as to the definition of "real sub" in home audio use (let's not even talk about car audio
), as following the THX convention that Derek noted, that crossing (any number of) them over as high as the mid 100 - 200Hz range does not meet that standard - one might even say it subverts it
I thought I'd through this out. These are Alpair 12P's in a MLTL, one with grill and one without. The sub peeking out in the lower right is a Peerless 10" 850146 in a 3l BR. Does 20-150Hz very nicely, thank you.
The MLTL's are going into the truck tonight for the trip to Dallas for Lone Star Audio Fest Friday-Saturday. See (those withing driving distance) there!
Bob
The MLTL's are going into the truck tonight for the trip to Dallas for Lone Star Audio Fest Friday-Saturday. See (those withing driving distance) there!
Bob
Attachments
what is the difference in the Mark Audio speakers between paper cone & metal cone?
for example the Alpair 12 is available at 116€ in metal cone and 250€ in paper cone.
Is the sound very different?
same question for the Alpair 7 & the CHR-70?
by looking at the links provided by zman01 (thank man!) some builds: http://www.frugal-phile.com/boxlib/woden/MarkAudio-A12-DBR-290610.pdf & http://www.frugal-phile.com/boxlib/P10free/ClassicGR-Mar-Ken12-1v01-map-200412.pdf could really fit my needs.
Again, in 5.1 configuration, are 5 Alpair 10 or 12 must be selected, or smaller like chr-70 for the rear can be chosen? or for the rear this build is more recommended: CHR-70splayedSurround0v9 (slide 4) http://www.frugal-phile.com/boxlib/P10free/MT-HT-Appendix-191209.pdf
for example the Alpair 12 is available at 116€ in metal cone and 250€ in paper cone.
Is the sound very different?
same question for the Alpair 7 & the CHR-70?
by looking at the links provided by zman01 (thank man!) some builds: http://www.frugal-phile.com/boxlib/woden/MarkAudio-A12-DBR-290610.pdf & http://www.frugal-phile.com/boxlib/P10free/ClassicGR-Mar-Ken12-1v01-map-200412.pdf could really fit my needs.
Again, in 5.1 configuration, are 5 Alpair 10 or 12 must be selected, or smaller like chr-70 for the rear can be chosen? or for the rear this build is more recommended: CHR-70splayedSurround0v9 (slide 4) http://www.frugal-phile.com/boxlib/P10free/MT-HT-Appendix-191209.pdf
jayce996,
Mark Fenlon would be most capable to comment on the differences between the generations of his Alpair 12, but I will dare to give it a shot.
The first Alpair 12 was metal cone. Efficiency is around 89 dB, xmax 9mm, Fs 46 Hz IIRC. A good driver all round, with big dynamic sound for a 6.5 inch driver. LF extension in the right cabinets is good. Mark came out with the paper cone later (in 2012). The A12P is close to 3dB more efficient vs metal and more suitable to low power amplifiers. It has a bit more extended top and wider dispersion pattern. The sound is smoother and more mellow (with plenty of detail), probably due to the paper cone and other tweaks Mark has developed over time. The LF extension is a bit less than the A12 metal, understandable given the trade-off resulting from a lighter cone, drive train, and a more efficient driver.
The Alp 7.3 is a favorite of many (including me) for clarity and refined sound. It is a more finnessed sounding driver than the CHR-70 family. The CHR-70.x are impressive performers for their size and price though. The CHR cones are not as light as the Alp 7 and will probably take more "abuse".
Having Alp 10 or Alp 12 as fronts and center with CHR-70.3 as rear can be an option worth trying out and make a nice HT setup.
Mark Fenlon would be most capable to comment on the differences between the generations of his Alpair 12, but I will dare to give it a shot.
The first Alpair 12 was metal cone. Efficiency is around 89 dB, xmax 9mm, Fs 46 Hz IIRC. A good driver all round, with big dynamic sound for a 6.5 inch driver. LF extension in the right cabinets is good. Mark came out with the paper cone later (in 2012). The A12P is close to 3dB more efficient vs metal and more suitable to low power amplifiers. It has a bit more extended top and wider dispersion pattern. The sound is smoother and more mellow (with plenty of detail), probably due to the paper cone and other tweaks Mark has developed over time. The LF extension is a bit less than the A12 metal, understandable given the trade-off resulting from a lighter cone, drive train, and a more efficient driver.
The Alp 7.3 is a favorite of many (including me) for clarity and refined sound. It is a more finnessed sounding driver than the CHR-70 family. The CHR-70.x are impressive performers for their size and price though. The CHR cones are not as light as the Alp 7 and will probably take more "abuse".
Having Alp 10 or Alp 12 as fronts and center with CHR-70.3 as rear can be an option worth trying out and make a nice HT setup.
Well, I've yapped on about my own Alpair 5.1 system a few times now - consisting of 7s for the front row, and 6M in rear surrounds,
As Zia has commented, for those of us that have played with as much of the entire model range of Mark's drivers as we can afford, and as they've evolved over the years, the Alpair7 (now in gen3 / A) is for many the "Goldilocks" driver. That was certainly the case for me, but that was before the 12P and even 10.2, and may well change with the new 10P or 8s .
We'll have to wait to hear - I know a guy can have too many amps, but not speakers, right ?
If budget and physical space to accommodate the requisite enclosure dimensions (currently under discussion elsewhere) permits, 12Ps for at least the front row would be an amazing arrangement - and possibly still cost less than many commercial multiways.
For rear or front height surrounds, I'd opine that most of the program content is far less demanding of the resolution and detail delivered by any of the Alpair series, and CHR or CHPs could be quite sufficient to the task.
As Zia has commented, for those of us that have played with as much of the entire model range of Mark's drivers as we can afford, and as they've evolved over the years, the Alpair7 (now in gen3 / A) is for many the "Goldilocks" driver. That was certainly the case for me, but that was before the 12P and even 10.2, and may well change with the new 10P or 8s .
We'll have to wait to hear - I know a guy can have too many amps, but not speakers, right ?
If budget and physical space to accommodate the requisite enclosure dimensions (currently under discussion elsewhere) permits, 12Ps for at least the front row would be an amazing arrangement - and possibly still cost less than many commercial multiways.
For rear or front height surrounds, I'd opine that most of the program content is far less demanding of the resolution and detail delivered by any of the Alpair series, and CHR or CHPs could be quite sufficient to the task.
The price differential is more likely a result of the old A12 being cleared out by the old distributor. In North America they were never available at the same time, and the paper cone driver ($157 each) arrived at a lower price than the metal cone driver sold for.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.