Low level body/weight presence wanted: Can 12" full range deliver?
Hello all from Vancouver, BC
I've read a lot but I've reached a point where I can't get the answer to this question without hitting an us vs. them from both sides. From what I've read I'm attracted to the added presence a full range can provide. The idea that the brain does not need to decode a cross-over and reassemble signals coming from more than 1 point source intrigues me. But I must ask:
Can a larger full range with a 1 mm excursion provide the visceral weight and body to instruments and voices at lower to medium volumes? And is there such a thing as body independent of bass?
I want to build 5 speakers for an acoustically live 11 x 15 room. I have to decide between conventional 2-way or full range. The 2-ways would involve building 5 matching GR Research Neo 2X's [http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=54382.0] - a new XBL design. For the full range the fronts and center would be smaller variations of Commonsense's 2.8 MKII using the Audio Nirvana Super 12 Cast Frame with Minimonitor rears using the Super 8 Casts. Either case would be supported by a Rythmik/GR sealed servo sub.
I have to explain that I only have experience building or buying smallish 2-way speakers that could provide neutrality and detail at low levels. - Being an urban renter with my nature I just couldn't enjoy music if I felt it might be intruding on others.
I've moved to a place that allows me a little more latitude in volume and I crave experiencing a bit more body or weight adding to the presence of a sound. However I didn't want to give up the clarity and neutrality I've grown accustomed to and WAF demands speakers be modest in size.
I guess I should mention I've tried loudness EQ, an SVS subwoofer and increasing the amplification head room. Of these approaches only a subwoofer seemed natural, leading me in any case to plan on building a Rythmik sealed servo using a GR SW12-4 which I'll use at low volumes for music and a bit louder when I can.
I know a fast musical sub can add weight in it's range. But I worry about the lower midrange in either of the two choices I described above. So on the full range side one variation of the Nirvana build would be adding an Ambience matching driver facing up [http://www.commonsenseaudio.com/nirvana.html] which risks being too much for a small room. And for the 2-way adding a driver making an MTM.
Hello all from Vancouver, BC
I've read a lot but I've reached a point where I can't get the answer to this question without hitting an us vs. them from both sides. From what I've read I'm attracted to the added presence a full range can provide. The idea that the brain does not need to decode a cross-over and reassemble signals coming from more than 1 point source intrigues me. But I must ask:
Can a larger full range with a 1 mm excursion provide the visceral weight and body to instruments and voices at lower to medium volumes? And is there such a thing as body independent of bass?
I want to build 5 speakers for an acoustically live 11 x 15 room. I have to decide between conventional 2-way or full range. The 2-ways would involve building 5 matching GR Research Neo 2X's [http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=54382.0] - a new XBL design. For the full range the fronts and center would be smaller variations of Commonsense's 2.8 MKII using the Audio Nirvana Super 12 Cast Frame with Minimonitor rears using the Super 8 Casts. Either case would be supported by a Rythmik/GR sealed servo sub.
I have to explain that I only have experience building or buying smallish 2-way speakers that could provide neutrality and detail at low levels. - Being an urban renter with my nature I just couldn't enjoy music if I felt it might be intruding on others.
I've moved to a place that allows me a little more latitude in volume and I crave experiencing a bit more body or weight adding to the presence of a sound. However I didn't want to give up the clarity and neutrality I've grown accustomed to and WAF demands speakers be modest in size.
I guess I should mention I've tried loudness EQ, an SVS subwoofer and increasing the amplification head room. Of these approaches only a subwoofer seemed natural, leading me in any case to plan on building a Rythmik sealed servo using a GR SW12-4 which I'll use at low volumes for music and a bit louder when I can.
I know a fast musical sub can add weight in it's range. But I worry about the lower midrange in either of the two choices I described above. So on the full range side one variation of the Nirvana build would be adding an Ambience matching driver facing up [http://www.commonsenseaudio.com/nirvana.html] which risks being too much for a small room. And for the 2-way adding a driver making an MTM.
Hi VanJerry, I also listen at lower volumes and thus want a slightly plumper bass than would be flat. And yes, there are lots of words like "body" to describe the quality of bass you'll get (some of my faves: boomy, tubby, plump, pleasing, tight, lean, recessed, not enough, and missing).
Having only used various 8" and 6" but with good results, I'd imagine a 12" would have even better bass (though high frequencies would presumably beam more), but, but, but.
You're saying you'll put those interesting drivers into somewhat "off the shelf" cabinets. That's a no-no. You should (a) search here on the driver name to see what more optimal designs have been created, if any, and (b) consider investing some of that big buget in an inexpensive "woofer tester" for the best results.
You might play around with the free and simple WinISD program (e.g., enter the internal dims of that cabinet you mentioned, along with the driver specs, and see what the bass response looks like). Bear in mind that WinISD doesn't take room factors and certain other factors into account, but it's a start.
Also, if you re-cast your question as, "What's the best cabinet design possible for these drivers, in this room, for these musical styles, for this volume level," etc. then some of the goodly folk here can help you reach the state of the art, as opposed to what GM recently called "a fart box."
Edit: trimmed the fat!
Having only used various 8" and 6" but with good results, I'd imagine a 12" would have even better bass (though high frequencies would presumably beam more), but, but, but.
You're saying you'll put those interesting drivers into somewhat "off the shelf" cabinets. That's a no-no. You should (a) search here on the driver name to see what more optimal designs have been created, if any, and (b) consider investing some of that big buget in an inexpensive "woofer tester" for the best results.
You might play around with the free and simple WinISD program (e.g., enter the internal dims of that cabinet you mentioned, along with the driver specs, and see what the bass response looks like). Bear in mind that WinISD doesn't take room factors and certain other factors into account, but it's a start.
Also, if you re-cast your question as, "What's the best cabinet design possible for these drivers, in this room, for these musical styles, for this volume level," etc. then some of the goodly folk here can help you reach the state of the art, as opposed to what GM recently called "a fart box."
Edit: trimmed the fat!
Thank you OzMikeH.
Sorry about the delay. I've been looking all over for the xmax for the Hammer 12". Is it more than a mm? Darkmoebius' description of the Hammer is exciting. I can see why you suggest it. But I'd use up most of my budget for 5 speakers if I got the Hammer kit to make 2. Xmax for the Nirvana 12 is 1mm. Might it make as dynamic a result? Plus I'd really like a cross-overless full range experience. I was going to say single driver, but combining natural limits of 2 drivers did yield the Ikonoclast3 which is pretty cool for low level performance and kind of what started me thinking about full range as a solution to my quest. [http://www.warrengregoire.com/hifi-stereo-ikonoklast3.htm]
Also, the Hammer is 48" big. Spouse won't approve. Goes double for BIB if this stands for "bigger is better" designs. Curvy Chang does look interesting, but definitely a challenging build. I plan to be resourceful but my tools and abilities are limited.
My aim was to take advantage of a very musical sub so that I wouldn't need the speakers to go down to more than 60 or 80Hz thus reducing the cabinet size.
Sorry about the delay. I've been looking all over for the xmax for the Hammer 12". Is it more than a mm? Darkmoebius' description of the Hammer is exciting. I can see why you suggest it. But I'd use up most of my budget for 5 speakers if I got the Hammer kit to make 2. Xmax for the Nirvana 12 is 1mm. Might it make as dynamic a result? Plus I'd really like a cross-overless full range experience. I was going to say single driver, but combining natural limits of 2 drivers did yield the Ikonoclast3 which is pretty cool for low level performance and kind of what started me thinking about full range as a solution to my quest. [http://www.warrengregoire.com/hifi-stereo-ikonoklast3.htm]
Also, the Hammer is 48" big. Spouse won't approve. Goes double for BIB if this stands for "bigger is better" designs. Curvy Chang does look interesting, but definitely a challenging build. I plan to be resourceful but my tools and abilities are limited.
My aim was to take advantage of a very musical sub so that I wouldn't need the speakers to go down to more than 60 or 80Hz thus reducing the cabinet size.
Hi rjbond3rd,
Oh, no, I wouldn't go off the shelf, like a Parts Express or something. (Besides that would cheat me of my fantasy to somehow involve some diy plyboo made out of vertical bamboo flooring.)
Commonsense doesn't sell cabinets any more anyway. The 2.8 I mention is simply the BR plans that David Dicks insists would work best for his larger Nirvana's. However, again, as in my reply to OzMikeH, I'm interested in a smaller variation. Unfortunately, I run an iMac so no affordable or free modeling programs for me. But I get what you mean about recasting my question and I'll do that: Like, what specific BR volume would allow me to get an F3 of 80Hz with a Nirvana Super Cast 12".
But while I'm in the middle of this thread I was curious why doubling up on the full range drivers a la bipole wouldn't be the best route to weight, regardless of the driver's size or weightiness to begin with. That is, whether there was a catch to this quick and dirty method besides added expense.
And specifically at low volumes, would a bipole using, say, a couple of CSS FR125SR's per speaker http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=FR125SR provide more weight than a single 12" Nirvana?
Oh, no, I wouldn't go off the shelf, like a Parts Express or something. (Besides that would cheat me of my fantasy to somehow involve some diy plyboo made out of vertical bamboo flooring.)
Commonsense doesn't sell cabinets any more anyway. The 2.8 I mention is simply the BR plans that David Dicks insists would work best for his larger Nirvana's. However, again, as in my reply to OzMikeH, I'm interested in a smaller variation. Unfortunately, I run an iMac so no affordable or free modeling programs for me. But I get what you mean about recasting my question and I'll do that: Like, what specific BR volume would allow me to get an F3 of 80Hz with a Nirvana Super Cast 12".
But while I'm in the middle of this thread I was curious why doubling up on the full range drivers a la bipole wouldn't be the best route to weight, regardless of the driver's size or weightiness to begin with. That is, whether there was a catch to this quick and dirty method besides added expense.
And specifically at low volumes, would a bipole using, say, a couple of CSS FR125SR's per speaker http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=FR125SR provide more weight than a single 12" Nirvana?
Hi VanJerry,
Can you say what you mean by "weight"? Do you mean when you feel a rock kick drum in your chest or gut? Or that deep, bouncy dance-music kick drum (Roland 909)? Snare thwack? Or the rich resonance when the cello hits a low, slow note and the hairs stand up on the back of your neck? A distorted heavy metal guitar's I chun-chun-chunk? The bow-bow-bow of tympani?
You can definitely get Mac calculators, e.g. quickie simplistic ones you run in the browser (even works in Linux, Firefox etc.):
http://www.lalena.com/Audio/Calculator/Box/
A vastly better tool is Unibox if you have Excel (it's a spreadsheet but it doesn't work in Open Office, at least not for me, yet).
I don't think bipole gets you more "weight". It gives you the exact sound radiated (usually) in oppposite directions which gives you 3db more efficiency, lots of reflected sound (for better or worse), the ability (necessity?) of pulling the speakers away from the walls into the room w/o any BSC (baffle step compensation circuit) etc. etc. but in my opinion, bipole has the same "character" of bass.
The cabinet design you mention is "off the shelf" in the sense that it's not mated to a particular driver -- it's said to work with a range of drivers. That's old-school and I understand the appeal -- there's a cab here, a driver there, put them together and see if it sounds good. (I might be wrong but I also think it was "designed" separately from, and prior to, the cast-frame 12" becoming available.) Nothing wrong with that, I've done it myself and got mediocre to not-too-bad results, but there's this other notion of a more "optimal" cabinet done with simming.
On the other hand, given that you only want to get down to 80Hz, your troubles will be few because 80Hz is not hard to get. 40Hz is the challenge in my (relatively limited) experience.
Let's see what the gurus here say in terms of suggestions. I'd really love to hear this driver sometime. I'll ponder your post further in the meantime!
Can you say what you mean by "weight"? Do you mean when you feel a rock kick drum in your chest or gut? Or that deep, bouncy dance-music kick drum (Roland 909)? Snare thwack? Or the rich resonance when the cello hits a low, slow note and the hairs stand up on the back of your neck? A distorted heavy metal guitar's I chun-chun-chunk? The bow-bow-bow of tympani?
You can definitely get Mac calculators, e.g. quickie simplistic ones you run in the browser (even works in Linux, Firefox etc.):
http://www.lalena.com/Audio/Calculator/Box/
A vastly better tool is Unibox if you have Excel (it's a spreadsheet but it doesn't work in Open Office, at least not for me, yet).
I don't think bipole gets you more "weight". It gives you the exact sound radiated (usually) in oppposite directions which gives you 3db more efficiency, lots of reflected sound (for better or worse), the ability (necessity?) of pulling the speakers away from the walls into the room w/o any BSC (baffle step compensation circuit) etc. etc. but in my opinion, bipole has the same "character" of bass.
The cabinet design you mention is "off the shelf" in the sense that it's not mated to a particular driver -- it's said to work with a range of drivers. That's old-school and I understand the appeal -- there's a cab here, a driver there, put them together and see if it sounds good. (I might be wrong but I also think it was "designed" separately from, and prior to, the cast-frame 12" becoming available.) Nothing wrong with that, I've done it myself and got mediocre to not-too-bad results, but there's this other notion of a more "optimal" cabinet done with simming.
On the other hand, given that you only want to get down to 80Hz, your troubles will be few because 80Hz is not hard to get. 40Hz is the challenge in my (relatively limited) experience.
Let's see what the gurus here say in terms of suggestions. I'd really love to hear this driver sometime. I'll ponder your post further in the meantime!
Hi VanJerry,
While we wait for guru assistance, is it okay to kill a little time chatting about one of your fundamental choices? Since you only need down to 80Hz, I think the AN cast Super 12 might be overkill in that size room. Sounds like you could get by with something less extreme (by fullrange standards). Anyway...
Attached is an extremely crude sim I did in WinISD using the specs at:
http://www.commonsenseaudio.com/an12cfspecs.jpg
(It would be nice for Godzilla to chime in here since he's the WinISD guru in these parts.) It shows the bottom end you will get in a sealed box, as you go from 300 liters (wow!) down to 25 liters (ouch -- not sure the cast frame would even fit). (By the way, this sim ignores room factors.)
As basic as this is, I hope you see that scaling the box size "adjusts" the bass response. Make the box too big, and bass rolls off gently but too high. Make the box too small and you get that bump in the curve -- some people find the bump pleasing if there's no sub, but the bump is not desirable when mating with a sub.
Obviously you wouldn't build any of these boxes in reality. In fact, I'm not sure you want a sealed box at all (though some people feel they integrate with subs well), nor if you even want those humongous cast-frame 12" as front mains where you're only going down to 80hz. I'm not helping you much, am I?
Let's hope some more knowledgeable person will chime in. OzMikeH, are you still there?
While we wait for guru assistance, is it okay to kill a little time chatting about one of your fundamental choices? Since you only need down to 80Hz, I think the AN cast Super 12 might be overkill in that size room. Sounds like you could get by with something less extreme (by fullrange standards). Anyway...
Attached is an extremely crude sim I did in WinISD using the specs at:
http://www.commonsenseaudio.com/an12cfspecs.jpg
(It would be nice for Godzilla to chime in here since he's the WinISD guru in these parts.) It shows the bottom end you will get in a sealed box, as you go from 300 liters (wow!) down to 25 liters (ouch -- not sure the cast frame would even fit). (By the way, this sim ignores room factors.)
As basic as this is, I hope you see that scaling the box size "adjusts" the bass response. Make the box too big, and bass rolls off gently but too high. Make the box too small and you get that bump in the curve -- some people find the bump pleasing if there's no sub, but the bump is not desirable when mating with a sub.
Obviously you wouldn't build any of these boxes in reality. In fact, I'm not sure you want a sealed box at all (though some people feel they integrate with subs well), nor if you even want those humongous cast-frame 12" as front mains where you're only going down to 80hz. I'm not helping you much, am I?
Let's hope some more knowledgeable person will chime in. OzMikeH, are you still there?
Attachments
If you want full, tight, slam , go with the 12"s in a 2cu. ft. sealed cab . If you stuff with fibreglass , you can adjust the amount to give the exact bass "weight" you want , while the 2cu.ft. size is reasonable.
2 cu. ft. would correspond roughly to the 50Litre graph, but if you were to stuff the cabinet, then it could approach the 100Litre cabs rolloff. IME , stuffing will reduce some of the "snappyness"
of the sound.
Since you are using a sub for the very bottom end, the smooth response and gentle rollof of a sealed design should integrate nicely.
IMO, sealed cabinets have the best attack, sounding very snappy and tight. The combination of a 12" driver and tight snappy bass is a good one. Ever heard Klipsch Heresy's ? Not able to go very low, but they have a very good presentation for drum "attack".
Just my opinion, but you asked for it ! ! !
.......................Blake
2 cu. ft. would correspond roughly to the 50Litre graph, but if you were to stuff the cabinet, then it could approach the 100Litre cabs rolloff. IME , stuffing will reduce some of the "snappyness"
of the sound.
Since you are using a sub for the very bottom end, the smooth response and gentle rollof of a sealed design should integrate nicely.
IMO, sealed cabinets have the best attack, sounding very snappy and tight. The combination of a 12" driver and tight snappy bass is a good one. Ever heard Klipsch Heresy's ? Not able to go very low, but they have a very good presentation for drum "attack".
Just my opinion, but you asked for it ! ! !
.......................Blake
Wow, I thought I'd done some homework before I asked for help but it can take me days to look up enough background to be able make an intelligent response to some of the ideas I'm getting from you diyAudio members. On the other hand I didn't want to make anyone wait for my reply too long or you might think I didn't appreciate it. I do.
Hi rjbond3rd,
What do I mean by weight? What the heck do I mean by weight? It certainly would help my cause to express what it is. Or at least what I think it is. And I'll admit: I threw in "body" for good measure because I hoped whatever weight was, I hoped the comprehensive "weight and body" would take care to include all of it.
Well, I brought it up. It's my fault. Now 3 days searching and I'm back to where I started. I could find no better clue to it than in my own question when I mentioned the words "visceral" and "presence." And I can draw parallels from what happens in our visual experience...
So here goes:
Short of finding a doctoral thesis on chun-chun-chunk (is there such a term?) to me a sound's weight is it's ability to have an indismissable effect on the body and the mind.
It is in part visceral. On the body it is the amount of the energy that is felt: such as the amount of bass or of treble energy. Like a shock wave hitting the chest. If I were deaf and blind I would still know something is happening through the physical energy affecting the rest of my body. It could be direct, sustained and pleasurable like the low, slow note that cause the hairs to stand up on the back of the neck as you say, or masterfully confusing like the off, on, weak, strong roller coaster of a suspense movie's sound design.
It is in part a mental activity. On the mind it creates an effect which compels it to perform a calculation (left brain) or an appreciation (right brain) of what changes and contrasts our bodies are experiencing: dynamics. As much as our minds are compelled to stay engaged in performing these calculations this is presence. It's like a version of how we're into detecting visual movement.
Darting objects catch our visual attention. Rapid or complex changes in acoustic energy does the same. Small objects can still catch our attention if they behave in a compelling way. If not it helps to be big and colorful.
So I suppose, weight/body/presence - whatever it's called - is the combination of how much sound reaches us, and how much and how quickly its changes interest us. Bass requires more energy to register so if it is not boosted at low volumes one could alternately boost the capacity to notice its changes. And this would involve clarity and a quiet background.
In conclusion, weight is both an amount and a relative perception. Wait a second! Dang! I think I've just discovered relativity! ...again.
Hi rjbond3rd,
What do I mean by weight? What the heck do I mean by weight? It certainly would help my cause to express what it is. Or at least what I think it is. And I'll admit: I threw in "body" for good measure because I hoped whatever weight was, I hoped the comprehensive "weight and body" would take care to include all of it.
Well, I brought it up. It's my fault. Now 3 days searching and I'm back to where I started. I could find no better clue to it than in my own question when I mentioned the words "visceral" and "presence." And I can draw parallels from what happens in our visual experience...
So here goes:
Short of finding a doctoral thesis on chun-chun-chunk
(is there such a term?) to me a sound's weight is it's ability to have an indismissable effect on the body and the mind. It is in part visceral. On the body it is the amount of the energy that is felt: such as the amount of bass or of treble energy. Like a shock wave hitting the chest. If I were deaf and blind I would still know something is happening through the physical energy affecting the rest of my body. It could be direct, sustained and pleasurable like the low, slow note that cause the hairs to stand up on the back of the neck as you say, or masterfully confusing like the off, on, weak, strong roller coaster of a suspense movie's sound design.
It is in part a mental activity. On the mind it creates an effect which compels it to perform a calculation (left brain) or an appreciation (right brain) of what changes and contrasts our bodies are experiencing: dynamics. As much as our minds are compelled to stay engaged in performing these calculations this is presence. It's like a version of how we're into detecting visual movement.
Darting objects catch our visual attention. Rapid or complex changes in acoustic energy does the same. Small objects can still catch our attention if they behave in a compelling way. If not it helps to be big and colorful.
So I suppose, weight/body/presence - whatever it's called - is the combination of how much sound reaches us, and how much and how quickly its changes interest us. Bass requires more energy to register so if it is not boosted at low volumes one could alternately boost the capacity to notice its changes. And this would involve clarity and a quiet background.
In conclusion, weight is both an amount and a relative perception. Wait a second! Dang! I think I've just discovered relativity! ...again.
rjbond3rd,
AN 12 overkill? Actually, it's motivated by ignorance and fear on my part. I just want to move some visceral air... And there's that 1mm excursion staring at me. And if I don't know enough about all the factors I generally over engineer everything I do.
But on a different front, there's the simple fact the freq resp curves of the Cast Nirvana's just get nicer - more balanced - as they increase in size. I also was concerned about the notorious single driver "shoutyness." The Cast 12's curve just looked like the best hedge against shout. By a little bit.
And of the two Affordable Audio reviews the 12 edged the 8 at little extra cost.
Finally, the biggest reason for going for overkill is that I need to reduce the risk of dissatisfaction. As much as it'd be fun to make slower and surer progress up the ranks of diy possibilities my health isn't the best and I wanted some reliable acoustic medicine now. With a solid foundation to feed my spirits I'll be able to play with this rewarding subject a bit more.
Thank you for the WinISD chart. According this this a 2.5 cu. ft (70 liter) for the 12 looks like only a moderate bump in sealed. What would that look like ported with one large 6" port the way it was done in the AA review?
AN 12 overkill? Actually, it's motivated by ignorance and fear on my part. I just want to move some visceral air... And there's that 1mm excursion staring at me. And if I don't know enough about all the factors I generally over engineer everything I do.
But on a different front, there's the simple fact the freq resp curves of the Cast Nirvana's just get nicer - more balanced - as they increase in size. I also was concerned about the notorious single driver "shoutyness." The Cast 12's curve just looked like the best hedge against shout. By a little bit.
And of the two Affordable Audio reviews the 12 edged the 8 at little extra cost.
Finally, the biggest reason for going for overkill is that I need to reduce the risk of dissatisfaction. As much as it'd be fun to make slower and surer progress up the ranks of diy possibilities my health isn't the best and I wanted some reliable acoustic medicine now. With a solid foundation to feed my spirits I'll be able to play with this rewarding subject a bit more.
Thank you for the WinISD chart. According this this a 2.5 cu. ft (70 liter) for the 12 looks like only a moderate bump in sealed. What would that look like ported with one large 6" port the way it was done in the AA review?
Hi Nihilist,
Thank you for the analysis on the 2 cu. ft. That's sort of an ideal size aesthetically. I take it reducing the "snappyness" too much is a bad thing. Half-stuffed would yield the 70 liter result. That'd be just a slight bump. Not bad. Or worst case size wise: an actual 2.5 cu. ft. enclosure with no stuffing to give maximum snap. Am I getting the hang of this?
I could have a variable size plug for a 6" single port Bass Relex (used in the review) and test this out. I appreciate your confidence the 12" driver and tight bass is a good combination.
Oh and rjbond3rd,
I forgot to respond about the bipole. I understand front and back bipoles demand the kind of distance from walls I just can't afford. It's the same reason I gave up on Open Baffles for my current space. Someday though...
David Dick's bipoles are actually top and front. Aside from ambiance - which may or may not be useful, the idea is the top mounted upwards firing driver loses much of it's treble and midrange so that the remaining bass is available to add to the bass of the front firing driver without using a cross-over. By using a larger or smaller top driver this balance can be adjusted.
I'm not sure I want any much more than a bit of this ambiance quality in my left and right mains but it could come in handy for a center.
I should say to everybody my wife just won't likely accept a huge 12"-based center. So though I'd like to stick with left and right mains using front firing Cast 12's this is my new plan for a center:
A front firing Cast 10 with either a full range like the FR125S or a wide range like a WR125 or the M165X firing up at the ceiling. No cross-over, no caps. The intent is that this combination would throw a wider sound and match the robustness of the mains 12's but afford me a narrower baffle and smaller box. Any thoughts on this: center outrage - or the ideal large Nirvana center? (Currently Nirvana owners of any size mains are guided to used the 8" Minimonitor as center mainly because of it's much more comfortable size.)
Thank you for the analysis on the 2 cu. ft. That's sort of an ideal size aesthetically. I take it reducing the "snappyness" too much is a bad thing. Half-stuffed would yield the 70 liter result. That'd be just a slight bump. Not bad. Or worst case size wise: an actual 2.5 cu. ft. enclosure with no stuffing to give maximum snap. Am I getting the hang of this?
I could have a variable size plug for a 6" single port Bass Relex (used in the review) and test this out. I appreciate your confidence the 12" driver and tight bass is a good combination.
Oh and rjbond3rd,
I forgot to respond about the bipole. I understand front and back bipoles demand the kind of distance from walls I just can't afford. It's the same reason I gave up on Open Baffles for my current space. Someday though...
David Dick's bipoles are actually top and front. Aside from ambiance - which may or may not be useful, the idea is the top mounted upwards firing driver loses much of it's treble and midrange so that the remaining bass is available to add to the bass of the front firing driver without using a cross-over. By using a larger or smaller top driver this balance can be adjusted.
I'm not sure I want any much more than a bit of this ambiance quality in my left and right mains but it could come in handy for a center.
I should say to everybody my wife just won't likely accept a huge 12"-based center. So though I'd like to stick with left and right mains using front firing Cast 12's this is my new plan for a center:
A front firing Cast 10 with either a full range like the FR125S or a wide range like a WR125 or the M165X firing up at the ceiling. No cross-over, no caps. The intent is that this combination would throw a wider sound and match the robustness of the mains 12's but afford me a narrower baffle and smaller box. Any thoughts on this: center outrage - or the ideal large Nirvana center? (Currently Nirvana owners of any size mains are guided to used the 8" Minimonitor as center mainly because of it's much more comfortable size.)
VanJerry said:
Gotcha! Let's standardize on Blake's term of "slam." BTW I'm not a guru here, I'm just a chatty newb here to learn stuff.
Hmm, I think designing a speaker system is an inherently risky proposition, actually. The more risk-averse, the more I'd be inclined to build a design that others here have perfected over the years. But I salute your vision -- it's a big one!
I wouldn't go for any bump at all -- bump is for small speakers without much extension -- it gives you a little impression of bass. I think if anything, you'd want a nice gentle roll-off in the range where your sub will roll in (since the two will sum in the region where they cross over).
In terms of simming the Affordable Audio vented cab, the cab looks like it's at least 3 cubic feet (so 85 liters or so, minus volume of the driver and port). However, I could not get WinISD to make a nice freq. response curve and reasonable port length in 85 liters. I attached what WinISD does suggest, but as you can see, while the curve is nice, the cab is too huge, and the vent length is, ahem, a little on the short side.
Maybe a guru can chime in here and interpret what this all means!
Attachments
rjbond3rd said:
Couldn't find this reference about slam. Would this Blake go under the name Innerconflict in this forum?
Actually I'd prefer to build someone else's success. I would have loved to perfectly duplicate Commonsense's plans to establish a starting standard. Then go for the big vision. But there's simply no center plan available for the AN 10 or 12 and so that big 'ol Vas needs a big mirage - I mean vision
Oh, I didn't mean I was actually looking for a bump. I just noticed that even a 100 Liter had a bump and guestimated the cabinet size corresponding to the largest bump I'd imagine tolerating would be about 70 Liters. That'd be unstuffed.
I have to admit, I have to research sealed a little further. I spent most of my reading finding the drivers that attracted me and whether there was any way I could get away with an OB in my small space.
Commonsense's full size cab is 2.8 cu ft. But it turns out there is a BR 2.5 that David Dicks feels works just as well. Hence my recurring references to 2.5. I have little desire to go into uncharted territory on my own any more than I'm forced to.
VanJerry said:
Hi VanJerry, I meant Nihilist above, ninth post. (Come to think of it, yeah he must be InnerConflict on the FRD Forum...)
Maybe he can weigh in on whether these drivers would be good on OB. I see the specs say the Qts is .488 so that's an encouraging start.
I just did a search on "AN12" and there has been some conversation regarding OB though some of the posts refer to the stamped version. Might be worth cruising. If that doesnt' help, and you don't get more responses, I'd open a new thread with the driver's name in the thread title.
Oops, sorry on that.
edit: fixed formatting
VanJerry said:
With 12" drivers toed in a bit, you should get lots of reflections off the opposite wall. I would think bipole 12" would be almost overwhelming in a live 11x15 foot room.
I haven't had good luck with bipole using two different drivers, though a backfiring or upfiring tweeter can sound cool.
I think the bipole is good where you want the bass + efficiency to avoid a BSC (and then roll off the secondary driver to cut down on the reflected sound).
I have to say, though, that I'm surprised your wife doesn't like the idea of a 12" center! Personally, I'd leave that one speaker "un-bipoled" because I'd think you'd want the dialogue to be strictly localized.
You are a lucky guy to have such dilemmas!
A few comments:
I'm no expert, I have built a total of ONE set of speakers in the last 10 years. Then found they were not quite what I needed so I researched a LOT to learn what I do need. I put in a comment here and there to help others avoid my mistakes or to help them learn things which took me some time to figure out.
You're asking for 5 speakers. Have you sure you really need them? To me a centre speaker is just a dodgy workaround for poor imaging from your front speakers. I've done the HT thing with 4 speakers and it sounds fine to me.
Fullrange and widerange drivers often beam a bit, the high frequency is not dispersed evenly and is quite narrow. Home theatre generally involves at least 2 people and needs a wider sweet spot to sound good to everyone. Bigger fullrange drivers generally beam more than smaller ones. (please correct me if I'm wrong here!)
You appear to me hung up on 1mm excursion. Have a look at the AER range of drivers, essentially the same cone but the price goes up drastically with excursion (better magnet assemblies) there are some glorious drivers with 3mm and more. You want well controlled excursion, with a cheap driver that means not using too much of it. Don't get the two confused. Low excursion means better behavior and less breakups in a poor driver, but it is not the only way to acheive good sound. Give me a well behaved 8 inch driver being pushed to 2mm excursion over a 12 inch any day. The smaller lighter cone has more life where it matters, 300Hz to 6kHz.
There is no such thing as (more than one note of) bass without a huge box. It is just not possible to do well.
I'm getting the idea that you want a natural immediacy and impact to your new speakers. I think you will lose that fine background detail that adds so much to the realism with a bigger driver.
Go listen to a good 8 inch fullranger in a correctly designed box before you spend any money.
Depending on your room I'd be lookin at a pair of Changs with FE207E and FT17H tweeters for the fronts. or maybe the Sachiko with the 206. Yes they are huge but they go to 40Hz with vigour. mock up something even bigger and campaign your wife with it for a few weeks. then show her the above cabinets and remark how much smaller they are.
for the rears go with the FE167 in a smaller BR box. The rears are mainly effects, all you need is similar tonal quality and efficiency.
These are all opinions, and what I want may be different to what you want. I can't tell you what you need, I'm trying to help you find the right questions to ask. Doing something smaller but correctly is prefereable to a compromised "bigger" design.
Believe me, the FE207 in a decent box with a good source and amp rocks. It starts to lose a little grace with Metallica and drum and bass techno is just a bit too much to do well loud. You just need to do a few simple mods to the driver to make it behave well at higher volume. I don't bother with the surround sound any more, I find rear channels in most recordings are just circus tricks. You get more added realism (hairs standing on end) from spending the same money spent on BETTER speakers, not more speakers.
If you want the oooh ahh kaboom stuff consider a pair of good subwoofers mated to the other cabinets. I keep looking at the Rythmik 15 inch sealed servo subs. I've never heard them.
I'm no expert, I have built a total of ONE set of speakers in the last 10 years. Then found they were not quite what I needed so I researched a LOT to learn what I do need. I put in a comment here and there to help others avoid my mistakes or to help them learn things which took me some time to figure out.
You're asking for 5 speakers. Have you sure you really need them? To me a centre speaker is just a dodgy workaround for poor imaging from your front speakers. I've done the HT thing with 4 speakers and it sounds fine to me.
Fullrange and widerange drivers often beam a bit, the high frequency is not dispersed evenly and is quite narrow. Home theatre generally involves at least 2 people and needs a wider sweet spot to sound good to everyone. Bigger fullrange drivers generally beam more than smaller ones. (please correct me if I'm wrong here!)
You appear to me hung up on 1mm excursion. Have a look at the AER range of drivers, essentially the same cone but the price goes up drastically with excursion (better magnet assemblies) there are some glorious drivers with 3mm and more. You want well controlled excursion, with a cheap driver that means not using too much of it. Don't get the two confused. Low excursion means better behavior and less breakups in a poor driver, but it is not the only way to acheive good sound. Give me a well behaved 8 inch driver being pushed to 2mm excursion over a 12 inch any day. The smaller lighter cone has more life where it matters, 300Hz to 6kHz.
There is no such thing as (more than one note of) bass without a huge box. It is just not possible to do well.
I'm getting the idea that you want a natural immediacy and impact to your new speakers. I think you will lose that fine background detail that adds so much to the realism with a bigger driver.
Go listen to a good 8 inch fullranger in a correctly designed box before you spend any money.
Depending on your room I'd be lookin at a pair of Changs with FE207E and FT17H tweeters for the fronts. or maybe the Sachiko with the 206. Yes they are huge but they go to 40Hz with vigour. mock up something even bigger and campaign your wife with it for a few weeks. then show her the above cabinets and remark how much smaller they are.
for the rears go with the FE167 in a smaller BR box. The rears are mainly effects, all you need is similar tonal quality and efficiency.
These are all opinions, and what I want may be different to what you want. I can't tell you what you need, I'm trying to help you find the right questions to ask. Doing something smaller but correctly is prefereable to a compromised "bigger" design.
Believe me, the FE207 in a decent box with a good source and amp rocks. It starts to lose a little grace with Metallica and drum and bass techno is just a bit too much to do well loud. You just need to do a few simple mods to the driver to make it behave well at higher volume. I don't bother with the surround sound any more, I find rear channels in most recordings are just circus tricks. You get more added realism (hairs standing on end) from spending the same money spent on BETTER speakers, not more speakers.
If you want the oooh ahh kaboom stuff consider a pair of good subwoofers mated to the other cabinets. I keep looking at the Rythmik 15 inch sealed servo subs. I've never heard them.
Hey guys,
I am the same Blake that posts on the FRD Forum as Innerconflict.
If you are looking for physical bass sensation, then a passive radiator or ported system will give you more of that than any other cabinet design (with a given driver).
My personal experience is that a passive radiator system has the best slam factor ( physical impact) but unfortunately have poor transient response, which is a problem for me.
Ports are a step away, with less "slam" than a passive radiator , but better transient response.
Sealed cabinets have the least "slam" of these three, but offer the tight , snappy articulation that I love (superior transient response).
I have only heard my current speakers with an OB cabinet, so I can't much comment on the sound of OB's , as I have limited experience. I will say the lack of cabinet coloration is AWESOME , and they seem to provide a very clean response. OB's supposedly reduce the room's effects on reflections. It would seem so.
IMO , for music I would NOT use a passive radiator. They are great for HT , but I've never heard one that sounded "right" with music.
If you listen to rock/heavy metal , then I would go for a ported system.
Otherwise, I would go for sealed or OB.
Problem with OB is you need a pretty tall/wide baffle to get any bass extension , although you can "cheat" and use a narrow baffle with sides and/or top and bottom plates .
The above are based on my experience , which is NOT unlimited.
I reread your original post. Since you are only looking for 80hz, extension, I would stick with my original recommendation of a sealed cabinet. Go with the largest one your wife will realistically allow , and your there.
If you can, try to position the center of the drivers slightly above seated ear level . Seems to work real nice.
The beaming at higher frequencies is not as bad as some make it out to be, at least not with my system. It's not really such a bad thing anyway, as it just means you aren't spraying your walls with a bunch of treble that will become reflections.
I don't mean to skip TL/Tuned pipes , but they are considerabley more difficult to build and require more tuning than the others mentioned. I've built a few , although they were probably not tuned properly.......
............................................Blake
I am the same Blake that posts on the FRD Forum as Innerconflict.
If you are looking for physical bass sensation, then a passive radiator or ported system will give you more of that than any other cabinet design (with a given driver).
My personal experience is that a passive radiator system has the best slam factor ( physical impact) but unfortunately have poor transient response, which is a problem for me.
Ports are a step away, with less "slam" than a passive radiator , but better transient response.
Sealed cabinets have the least "slam" of these three, but offer the tight , snappy articulation that I love (superior transient response).
I have only heard my current speakers with an OB cabinet, so I can't much comment on the sound of OB's , as I have limited experience. I will say the lack of cabinet coloration is AWESOME , and they seem to provide a very clean response. OB's supposedly reduce the room's effects on reflections. It would seem so.
IMO , for music I would NOT use a passive radiator. They are great for HT , but I've never heard one that sounded "right" with music.
If you listen to rock/heavy metal , then I would go for a ported system.
Otherwise, I would go for sealed or OB.
Problem with OB is you need a pretty tall/wide baffle to get any bass extension , although you can "cheat" and use a narrow baffle with sides and/or top and bottom plates .
The above are based on my experience , which is NOT unlimited.
I reread your original post. Since you are only looking for 80hz, extension, I would stick with my original recommendation of a sealed cabinet. Go with the largest one your wife will realistically allow , and your there.
If you can, try to position the center of the drivers slightly above seated ear level . Seems to work real nice.
The beaming at higher frequencies is not as bad as some make it out to be, at least not with my system. It's not really such a bad thing anyway, as it just means you aren't spraying your walls with a bunch of treble that will become reflections.
I don't mean to skip TL/Tuned pipes , but they are considerabley more difficult to build and require more tuning than the others mentioned. I've built a few , although they were probably not tuned properly.......
............................................Blake
I appreciate the information I have received from everyone. But it's true I need to narrow things down if I'm to make the most of your help. So here's my best to do that right now.
I've decided on the liveness of full range w/no crossover. I'm going to order Nirvana Cast 12's or 10's to be used as front, left, center either as all 12's, all 10's, or 12's with a 10 in the center. Which? Well - I could use some help on that one. But I've finalized some other points I've listed below.
Including ordering a GR SW-12-04 and Rythmik A370PEQ direct servo amp now on their way. - Couldn't really discuss appropriate enclosures etc for low volume performance without knowing how they're supposed to integrate with a fast accurate sealed sub.
I've read conflicting opinions about this:
1. Some, including the manufacturer of the Nirvana's, advocate running full range speakers wide open, for example setting the sub to start blending into the full ranger's somewhere between their F3 and F10 at 12 dB/Octave. This would be fine for music but a concern for HT. Both because so much of the weight of HT is in the 80 - 200 Hz range and the sub may not reach there if it only starts politely. And out of concern for damaging the full range drivers - or at least chronically distorting them with LFE loads.
2. While in the 2-way speaker world I come from it's customary to use the receiver's cross-over and set as high as possible, short of the fact subs begin to localize above 80Hz.
The way I see it the Nirvana Cast 12 has a better low end so it would be the best driver if you folks suggest the sub be set up the first way. And any enclosure approach that allows some clean fullness in the mid bass would be preferable.
On the other hand that same low end would be wasted at a high cross-over in which case I'd be better off taking advantage of the Cast 10's better high end extension.
Other thoughts and suggestions I've tried to nail down, for better or for worse:
- I don't believe from what I've read that I'll have enough room from walls and such for OB to work in the small 11 x 15 room I'm using. But I'll certainly perform some experiments when I get the drivers. And I will always look forward to using OB should I move to a larger space in the future. (A question though. If there were a chance it could work, which am I more likely to get away with in a smaller room for OB: 12 or 10?)
- I don't normally listen to rock/heavy metal but what would an action film be without them? So looking at your menu, Nihilist, my programming fit would be for ported.
- I will build 2.5 cubic foot boxes. But to be flexible, I want to make them sealed so I can try this first before I cut any hole for a port. (A question: sealed would give the 12" the equivalent of the larger box it needs, but would a 12" do as well in a sealed environment as a 10"?)
- I know how great speakers free you from needing a center - I resisted a center myself till only recently. Certainly, for all those great movies originally made in stereo a center can even be worse. But for me it is now essential equipment for well designed 5.1.
- I accept with a larger driver I may lose that fine background detail. But I can't afford AER right now and I would only want an 8" if it was in this class. Besides, I'm gonna need something to research and look forward to
- 2.5 cubic feet is the limit of my wife's generosity. It may force compromise in "what could be" sound quality wise, but I want to try the big single driver experience and my wife has only ever had to contend with 1.5 and smaller!
- I'm postponing bipoles and will only consider adding small drivers firing towards the ceiling if I cannot later restrain my curiosity.
The Cast 10's have that higher extension that may come in handy in various ways. But with a sub duplicating some of the advantage of the 12's better low end, can someone explain the specific reason for the danger of going "too big" such as with the Cast 12"? To me the small difference in cost is unimportant. Whereas the success of a Super 12 in a 2.8 BR has been well established by John Hoffman's credible AffordableAudio review so that to me it is a known quantity.
I figure I'm not changing the thrust of the thread: it's still about how well large full range drivers might provide weight and presence at lower to medium volumes. (While allowing the drivers to survive the maybe not so occasionally loud action film as well. ) But if anyone experienced in this forum feels I should start this as a new thread I'll certainly do that.
I've decided on the liveness of full range w/no crossover. I'm going to order Nirvana Cast 12's or 10's to be used as front, left, center either as all 12's, all 10's, or 12's with a 10 in the center. Which? Well - I could use some help on that one. But I've finalized some other points I've listed below.
Including ordering a GR SW-12-04 and Rythmik A370PEQ direct servo amp now on their way. - Couldn't really discuss appropriate enclosures etc for low volume performance without knowing how they're supposed to integrate with a fast accurate sealed sub.
I've read conflicting opinions about this:
1. Some, including the manufacturer of the Nirvana's, advocate running full range speakers wide open, for example setting the sub to start blending into the full ranger's somewhere between their F3 and F10 at 12 dB/Octave. This would be fine for music but a concern for HT. Both because so much of the weight of HT is in the 80 - 200 Hz range and the sub may not reach there if it only starts politely. And out of concern for damaging the full range drivers - or at least chronically distorting them with LFE loads.
2. While in the 2-way speaker world I come from it's customary to use the receiver's cross-over and set as high as possible, short of the fact subs begin to localize above 80Hz.
The way I see it the Nirvana Cast 12 has a better low end so it would be the best driver if you folks suggest the sub be set up the first way. And any enclosure approach that allows some clean fullness in the mid bass would be preferable.
On the other hand that same low end would be wasted at a high cross-over in which case I'd be better off taking advantage of the Cast 10's better high end extension.
Other thoughts and suggestions I've tried to nail down, for better or for worse:
- I don't believe from what I've read that I'll have enough room from walls and such for OB to work in the small 11 x 15 room I'm using. But I'll certainly perform some experiments when I get the drivers. And I will always look forward to using OB should I move to a larger space in the future. (A question though. If there were a chance it could work, which am I more likely to get away with in a smaller room for OB: 12 or 10?)
- I don't normally listen to rock/heavy metal but what would an action film be without them? So looking at your menu, Nihilist, my programming fit would be for ported.
- I will build 2.5 cubic foot boxes. But to be flexible, I want to make them sealed so I can try this first before I cut any hole for a port. (A question: sealed would give the 12" the equivalent of the larger box it needs, but would a 12" do as well in a sealed environment as a 10"?)
- I know how great speakers free you from needing a center - I resisted a center myself till only recently. Certainly, for all those great movies originally made in stereo a center can even be worse. But for me it is now essential equipment for well designed 5.1.
- I accept with a larger driver I may lose that fine background detail. But I can't afford AER right now and I would only want an 8" if it was in this class. Besides, I'm gonna need something to research and look forward to
- 2.5 cubic feet is the limit of my wife's generosity. It may force compromise in "what could be" sound quality wise, but I want to try the big single driver experience and my wife has only ever had to contend with 1.5 and smaller!
- I'm postponing bipoles and will only consider adding small drivers firing towards the ceiling if I cannot later restrain my curiosity.
The Cast 10's have that higher extension that may come in handy in various ways. But with a sub duplicating some of the advantage of the 12's better low end, can someone explain the specific reason for the danger of going "too big" such as with the Cast 12"? To me the small difference in cost is unimportant. Whereas the success of a Super 12 in a 2.8 BR has been well established by John Hoffman's credible AffordableAudio review so that to me it is a known quantity.
I figure I'm not changing the thrust of the thread: it's still about how well large full range drivers might provide weight and presence at lower to medium volumes. (While allowing the drivers to survive the maybe not so occasionally loud action film as well. ) But if anyone experienced in this forum feels I should start this as a new thread I'll certainly do that.
Hi VanJerry,
Interesting questions! I have only a moment but wanted to mention one thought in passing.
That AN12 cast frame is a dang sub-woofer. That is one big dog, and it seems to be begging to get off the leash and run as fast (low) as it can. Rolling it off to a sub seems like a shame, especially considering the cast frame, when by some accounts it can go down to 20hz. Crossing over to the sub at 40hz seems less of a shame.
But speaking of subs, it seems that a lot of people are mating full-rangers to subs on each channel, with the subs run up very high (e.g., 120hz or so):
http://www.bottlehead.com/loosep/S.E.Xy speakers.html
http://www.fullrange-speakers.com/eng/index.php?p=komplettsysteme/esra
http://store.hifiauthority.com/olsherkits.html
Using a sub on each channel would give you the option of choosing sealed or OB. Anyway, just a random passing thought, which I mention only because of your interest in thwack and thwump! I'm not suggesting these particular links except as examples of FR-oriented designs designed for lotsa bass.
edit: added third link
Interesting questions! I have only a moment but wanted to mention one thought in passing.
That AN12 cast frame is a dang sub-woofer. That is one big dog, and it seems to be begging to get off the leash and run as fast (low) as it can. Rolling it off to a sub seems like a shame, especially considering the cast frame, when by some accounts it can go down to 20hz. Crossing over to the sub at 40hz seems less of a shame.
But speaking of subs, it seems that a lot of people are mating full-rangers to subs on each channel, with the subs run up very high (e.g., 120hz or so):
http://www.bottlehead.com/loosep/S.E.Xy speakers.html
http://www.fullrange-speakers.com/eng/index.php?p=komplettsysteme/esra
http://store.hifiauthority.com/olsherkits.html
Using a sub on each channel would give you the option of choosing sealed or OB. Anyway, just a random passing thought, which I mention only because of your interest in thwack and thwump! I'm not suggesting these particular links except as examples of FR-oriented designs designed for lotsa bass.
edit: added third link
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.