Re: 8ohm efficient driver
I can't vouch for 12's, but 15's that will give you 98 dB,
1 watt, in a 100 liter box:
Beyma 15 LX 60 (-3dB 49Hz, 100 liter box) QTS 0.35
RCF L 15P 200 (-3dB 43Hz, 100 liter box) QTS 0.39
If you go for the 200 liter box, the -3db will be lower.
You basically answered your own question. Why settle
for a driver that can do an adequite job? The Eighteen
Sound will give you a -3dB @ 65 Hz in a 100 liter box
(QTS 0.25)
I use any driver that has 0.25 - 0.1 in a front loaded horn.
0.29 - 0.32 in a Rear loaded horn. Actually, I've gotten good results with 0.29 drivers in reflex boxes. But, they still
fall short to 0.39 drivers.
I would need to run them in my program. Not familiar with
that driver.
Parts Express is a good resource to get TS Parameters to
make some comparrisons on 12 inch woofers. I only like the
Lab 12, so, I'm biased toward them.
mikee12345 said:
I can't vouch for 12's, but 15's that will give you 98 dB,
1 watt, in a 100 liter box:
Beyma 15 LX 60 (-3dB 49Hz, 100 liter box) QTS 0.35
RCF L 15P 200 (-3dB 43Hz, 100 liter box) QTS 0.39
If you go for the 200 liter box, the -3db will be lower.
You basically answered your own question. Why settle for a driver that can do an adequite job? The Eighteen
Sound will give you a -3dB @ 65 Hz in a 100 liter box
(QTS 0.25)I use any driver that has 0.25 - 0.1 in a front loaded horn.
0.29 - 0.32 in a Rear loaded horn. Actually, I've gotten good results with 0.29 drivers in reflex boxes. But, they still
fall short to 0.39 drivers.
I would need to run them in my program. Not familiar with
that driver.
Parts Express is a good resource to get TS Parameters to
make some comparrisons on 12 inch woofers. I only like the
Lab 12, so, I'm biased toward them.
Re: Re: 8ohm efficient driver
> The Eighteen
> Sound will give you a -3dB @ 65 Hz in a 100 liter box
> (QTS 0.25)
Not with EQ, and it is not a bad thing. When used properly it is very useful. We can achieve a -3db point of 30Hz with this driver (15MB700) when correctly placed indoors.
NOTE: I personally would not use this driver as a subwoofer, it does not follow my tastes. But it does suit Mike's design requirements, which are rather different from what most people want to achieve.
> The Eighteen
> Sound will give you a -3dB @ 65 Hz in a 100 liter box
>
(QTS 0.25)Not with EQ, and it is not a bad thing. When used properly it is very useful. We can achieve a -3db point of 30Hz with this driver (15MB700) when correctly placed indoors.
NOTE: I personally would not use this driver as a subwoofer, it does not follow my tastes. But it does suit Mike's design requirements, which are rather different from what most people want to achieve.
low Q -good
brett-thanks bt its 750$ NZ not US
im a poor student
i could almost afford a shiva and amp,but i wouldnt afford as much power as i need..
omnis arguments dont have any facts and dont persuade me.
im going to buy this 15 its my best choice.
(oh woopee im -3db down due to the low Q big deal omni)
as i said before- better Low Q which can be adjusted than high Q which just thuds yuckily!
http://sound.westhosts.com
brett-thanks bt its 750$ NZ not US
im a poor student
i could almost afford a shiva and amp,but i wouldnt afford as much power as i need..
omnis arguments dont have any facts and dont persuade me.im going to buy this 15 its my best choice.
(oh woopee im -3db down due to the low Q big deal omni)
as i said before- better Low Q which can be adjusted than high Q which just thuds yuckily!
http://sound.westhosts.com
Its a pity you guys don't understand
When I measured the Peerless 12 XLS, vs the Lab 12, both speakers were measured using no help. Both were measured in a 100 liter box, using the best tuning frequency to achieve the lowest –3dB point, using the Normalized Gain method. Both speakers VAS are practically identical, so I felt it was a fair comparison.
My idea of a good driver for bass, is achieving the desired
fs you want, without any help from passive radiators,
and equalizers. Apparently you prefer using processing, and,
drone cones to get the job done.
Of course, you can get a lower frequency using the Peerless
12 XLS with the help of processing, and drone cones. However, the -3dB starts early (Normalized gain) and precedes at - 3dB until it reaches your desired fs.
I prefer the Normalized Gain flat or a – 1.5dB, then, having
the –3dB at the desired fs.
This is why I recommended the Lab 12 over the Peerless 12 XLS.
If you guys think the QTS isn't so important, fine.
However, Johan Van Zyl, Rog Mogule, Tom Danley, and,
Woego Reed, are my mentors, and, they haven’t steered me wrong.
Most people don’t really know how the QTS effects the sound at lower frequencies.
I just wanted to share to you, what they taught me. Apparently, you’re not interested.
Best Regards,
When I measured the Peerless 12 XLS, vs the Lab 12, both speakers were measured using no help. Both were measured in a 100 liter box, using the best tuning frequency to achieve the lowest –3dB point, using the Normalized Gain method. Both speakers VAS are practically identical, so I felt it was a fair comparison.
My idea of a good driver for bass, is achieving the desired
fs you want, without any help from passive radiators,
and equalizers. Apparently you prefer using processing, and,
drone cones to get the job done.
Of course, you can get a lower frequency using the Peerless
12 XLS with the help of processing, and drone cones. However, the -3dB starts early (Normalized gain) and precedes at - 3dB until it reaches your desired fs.
I prefer the Normalized Gain flat or a – 1.5dB, then, having
the –3dB at the desired fs.
This is why I recommended the Lab 12 over the Peerless 12 XLS.
If you guys think the QTS isn't so important, fine.
However, Johan Van Zyl, Rog Mogule, Tom Danley, and,
Woego Reed, are my mentors, and, they haven’t steered me wrong.
Most people don’t really know how the QTS effects the sound at lower frequencies.
I just wanted to share to you, what they taught me. Apparently, you’re not interested.
Best Regards,
u must say WHY not just state that it does.
the lab12 is unavailable here....or is expensive with shipping until proven otherwise.
the peerless xls is not designed for 100litre boxes
the shiva is a more closer contender it does F3-21hz with 135litres.no eq.
u cannot compare 2 different drivers with different Q factors in the same box. u must optimise each box individualy.
using PRs and EQ isnt ideal.
PRs because they cost $
EQ because it uses up available power.
>>12 XLS with the help of processing, and drone cones. However, the -3dB starts early (Normalized gain) and precedes at - 3dB until it reaches your desired fs.
that is true.
>If you guys think the QTS isn't so important, fine
u dont realise that i think that the Qts is VERY important.
i just have a different opinion what i want than u do
>>Most people don’t really know how the QTS effects the sound at lower frequencies
that is very true.
i have used Dosbox for years and winisd since it came out.
i am well aware of Q effects.
what i have,is a choice of NO speaker,or a slightly less than optimal 15inch 700 18sound driver.
Slightly being my subjective opinion
>>I just wanted to share to you, what they taught me. Apparently, you’re not interested
i appreciate it.!!
But.
u must say WHY not just state that it does.
there is a difference between a slightly less efficient driver and one that *sounds terrible in a reflex box*
when u say > this driver will *sound terrible* in that box..
u must say WHY not just state that it does.>>>
---because i have no information to agree with u that it will sound crap.---
less than optimal,but ok in my opinion.
the lab12 is unavailable here....or is expensive with shipping until proven otherwise.
the peerless xls is not designed for 100litre boxes
the shiva is a more closer contender it does F3-21hz with 135litres.no eq.
u cannot compare 2 different drivers with different Q factors in the same box. u must optimise each box individualy.
using PRs and EQ isnt ideal.
PRs because they cost $
EQ because it uses up available power.
>>12 XLS with the help of processing, and drone cones. However, the -3dB starts early (Normalized gain) and precedes at - 3dB until it reaches your desired fs.
that is true.
>If you guys think the QTS isn't so important, fine
u dont realise that i think that the Qts is VERY important.
i just have a different opinion what i want than u do
>>Most people don’t really know how the QTS effects the sound at lower frequencies
that is very true.
i have used Dosbox for years and winisd since it came out.
i am well aware of Q effects.
what i have,is a choice of NO speaker,or a slightly less than optimal 15inch 700 18sound driver.
Slightly being my subjective opinion
>>I just wanted to share to you, what they taught me. Apparently, you’re not interested
i appreciate it.!!
But.
u must say WHY not just state that it does.
there is a difference between a slightly less efficient driver and one that *sounds terrible in a reflex box*
when u say > this driver will *sound terrible* in that box..
u must say WHY not just state that it does.>>>
---because i have no information to agree with u that it will sound crap.---
less than optimal,but ok in my opinion.
Hey Omni!
> When I measured the Peerless 12 XLS, vs the Lab 12, both
> speakers were measured using no help. Both were measured
> in a 100 liter box,
The way you have compared them is completely disregarding their intedned design. The Peerless driver has been designed for use in very small boxes, compared to the LAB12 which requires 100 or so L. I could say the reverse, and comapre the XLS in a 50L to the LAB12 in a 50L box, that way I would be able to say the LAB12 is a *bad* driver.
> My idea of a good driver for bass, is achieving the desired
> fs you want, without any help from passive radiators,
> and equalizers. Apparently you prefer using processing, and,
> drone cones to get the job done.
And the same for vents. Passive Radiators do NOT lower Fb any more than a vent does. Passive Radiators have been used with the Peerless woofer simply because the vent lengths would otherwise be very long. I could achieve the same results using 3 meter vents instead of PRs, but obviously I would not want a 3 meter vent sticking out of my box.
EQ on the other hand has been used to lower Fb in this overdamped alignment. There is no problems at all if EQ is used intelligently, and the results are great.
> Of course, you can get a lower frequency using the Peerless
> 12 XLS with the help of processing, and drone cones. However, > the -3dB starts early (Normalized gain) and precedes at - 3dB
> until it reaches your desired fs.
Not using drone cones, but yes, EQ is an integral part of the design and is used to achieve the target Fb. The LAB12 can have the same Fb as the peerless, however it is not of the same quality of the XLS (although I would choose the LAB12 over Shiva any day).
> I prefer the Normalized Gain flat or a – 1.5dB, then, having
> the –3dB at the desired fs.
Fs is not a parameter of the box. I'll assume you have meant Fb. EQ or unassisted designs are fine by me so long as they are done properly. I am interested to know what you have against EQ?
> Most people don’t really know how the QTS effects the sound
> at lower frequencies.
Would you like to explain it then? Drivers suited to vented boxes generally have lighter cones than sealed box drivers. A lower Qts dictates the driver has a lighter cone, a more powerful magnet (hence higher efficiency), and of course, other things. Magnet strength is of course a component of Qes (affecting Qts), and vented boxes generally use more powerful magnets. This is why lower Qts speakers are suited to vented boxes (Qts of >0.4 I reccomend for sealed enclosures in most cases). There is a lot more than Qts as to how the driver will sound, and many opinions on it.
Qts is derived from Qes and Qms. Low Qts speakers have been said to sound more detailed than higher Qts speakers, which are supposed to sound more "smooth". Either way, I've found low Qts speakers to work well.
I would like to know your ideas on Low Qts drivers in vented boxes. I have personally had good success with them, would like to know what you think.
Adrian
> When I measured the Peerless 12 XLS, vs the Lab 12, both
> speakers were measured using no help. Both were measured
> in a 100 liter box,
The way you have compared them is completely disregarding their intedned design. The Peerless driver has been designed for use in very small boxes, compared to the LAB12 which requires 100 or so L. I could say the reverse, and comapre the XLS in a 50L to the LAB12 in a 50L box, that way I would be able to say the LAB12 is a *bad* driver.
> My idea of a good driver for bass, is achieving the desired
> fs you want, without any help from passive radiators,
> and equalizers. Apparently you prefer using processing, and,
> drone cones to get the job done.
And the same for vents. Passive Radiators do NOT lower Fb any more than a vent does. Passive Radiators have been used with the Peerless woofer simply because the vent lengths would otherwise be very long. I could achieve the same results using 3 meter vents instead of PRs, but obviously I would not want a 3 meter vent sticking out of my box.
EQ on the other hand has been used to lower Fb in this overdamped alignment. There is no problems at all if EQ is used intelligently, and the results are great.
> Of course, you can get a lower frequency using the Peerless
> 12 XLS with the help of processing, and drone cones. However, > the -3dB starts early (Normalized gain) and precedes at - 3dB
> until it reaches your desired fs.
Not using drone cones, but yes, EQ is an integral part of the design and is used to achieve the target Fb. The LAB12 can have the same Fb as the peerless, however it is not of the same quality of the XLS (although I would choose the LAB12 over Shiva any day).
> I prefer the Normalized Gain flat or a – 1.5dB, then, having
> the –3dB at the desired fs.
Fs is not a parameter of the box. I'll assume you have meant Fb. EQ or unassisted designs are fine by me so long as they are done properly. I am interested to know what you have against EQ?
> Most people don’t really know how the QTS effects the sound
> at lower frequencies.
Would you like to explain it then? Drivers suited to vented boxes generally have lighter cones than sealed box drivers. A lower Qts dictates the driver has a lighter cone, a more powerful magnet (hence higher efficiency), and of course, other things. Magnet strength is of course a component of Qes (affecting Qts), and vented boxes generally use more powerful magnets. This is why lower Qts speakers are suited to vented boxes (Qts of >0.4 I reccomend for sealed enclosures in most cases). There is a lot more than Qts as to how the driver will sound, and many opinions on it.
Qts is derived from Qes and Qms. Low Qts speakers have been said to sound more detailed than higher Qts speakers, which are supposed to sound more "smooth". Either way, I've found low Qts speakers to work well.
I would like to know your ideas on Low Qts drivers in vented boxes. I have personally had good success with them, would like to know what you think.
Adrian
BTW: This is probably the second time I've posted this message too. How long does it usually take for the post to appear on the web after I actually post it? Its been a couple of hours and it still has not shown up!
Hey Omni!
> When I measured the Peerless 12 XLS, vs the Lab 12, both
> speakers were measured using no help. Both were measured
> in a 100 liter box,
The way you have compared them is completely disregarding their intedned design. The Peerless driver has been designed for use in very small boxes, compared to the LAB12 which requires 100 or so L. I could say the reverse, and comapre the XLS in a 50L to the LAB12 in a 50L box, that way I would be able to say the LAB12 is a *bad* driver.
> My idea of a good driver for bass, is achieving the desired
> fs you want, without any help from passive radiators,
> and equalizers. Apparently you prefer using processing, and,
> drone cones to get the job done.
And the same for vents. Passive Radiators do NOT lower Fb any more than a vent does. Passive Radiators have been used with the Peerless woofer simply because the vent lengths would otherwise be very long. I could achieve the same results using 3 meter vents instead of PRs, but obviously I would not want a 3 meter vent sticking out of my box.
EQ on the other hand has been used to lower Fb in this overdamped alignment. There is no problems at all if EQ is used intelligently, and the results are great.
> Of course, you can get a lower frequency using the Peerless
> 12 XLS with the help of processing, and drone cones. However, > the -3dB starts early (Normalized gain) and precedes at - 3dB
> until it reaches your desired fs.
Not using drone cones, but yes, EQ is an integral part of the design and is used to achieve the target Fb. The LAB12 can have the same Fb as the peerless, however it is not of the same quality of the XLS (although I would choose the LAB12 over Shiva any day).
> I prefer the Normalized Gain flat or a – 1.5dB, then, having
> the –3dB at the desired fs.
Fs is not a parameter of the box. I'll assume you have meant Fb. EQ or unassisted designs are fine by me so long as they are done properly. I am interested to know what you have against EQ?
> Most people don’t really know how the QTS effects the sound
> at lower frequencies.
Would you like to explain it then? Drivers suited to vented boxes generally have lighter cones than sealed box drivers. A lower Qts dictates the driver has a lighter cone, a more powerful magnet (hence higher efficiency), and of course, other things. Magnet strength is of course a component of Qes (affecting Qts), and vented boxes generally use more powerful magnets. This is why lower Qts speakers are suited to vented boxes (Qts of >0.4 I reccomend for sealed enclosures in most cases). There is a lot more than Qts as to how the driver will sound, and many opinions on it.
Qts is derived from Qes and Qms. Low Qts speakers have been said to sound more detailed than higher Qts speakers, which are supposed to sound more "smooth". Either way, I've found low Qts speakers to work well.
I would like to know your ideas on Low Qts drivers in vented boxes. I have personally had good success with them, would like to know what you think.
Adrian
Hey Omni!
> When I measured the Peerless 12 XLS, vs the Lab 12, both
> speakers were measured using no help. Both were measured
> in a 100 liter box,
The way you have compared them is completely disregarding their intedned design. The Peerless driver has been designed for use in very small boxes, compared to the LAB12 which requires 100 or so L. I could say the reverse, and comapre the XLS in a 50L to the LAB12 in a 50L box, that way I would be able to say the LAB12 is a *bad* driver.
> My idea of a good driver for bass, is achieving the desired
> fs you want, without any help from passive radiators,
> and equalizers. Apparently you prefer using processing, and,
> drone cones to get the job done.
And the same for vents. Passive Radiators do NOT lower Fb any more than a vent does. Passive Radiators have been used with the Peerless woofer simply because the vent lengths would otherwise be very long. I could achieve the same results using 3 meter vents instead of PRs, but obviously I would not want a 3 meter vent sticking out of my box.
EQ on the other hand has been used to lower Fb in this overdamped alignment. There is no problems at all if EQ is used intelligently, and the results are great.
> Of course, you can get a lower frequency using the Peerless
> 12 XLS with the help of processing, and drone cones. However, > the -3dB starts early (Normalized gain) and precedes at - 3dB
> until it reaches your desired fs.
Not using drone cones, but yes, EQ is an integral part of the design and is used to achieve the target Fb. The LAB12 can have the same Fb as the peerless, however it is not of the same quality of the XLS (although I would choose the LAB12 over Shiva any day).
> I prefer the Normalized Gain flat or a – 1.5dB, then, having
> the –3dB at the desired fs.
Fs is not a parameter of the box. I'll assume you have meant Fb. EQ or unassisted designs are fine by me so long as they are done properly. I am interested to know what you have against EQ?
> Most people don’t really know how the QTS effects the sound
> at lower frequencies.
Would you like to explain it then? Drivers suited to vented boxes generally have lighter cones than sealed box drivers. A lower Qts dictates the driver has a lighter cone, a more powerful magnet (hence higher efficiency), and of course, other things. Magnet strength is of course a component of Qes (affecting Qts), and vented boxes generally use more powerful magnets. This is why lower Qts speakers are suited to vented boxes (Qts of >0.4 I reccomend for sealed enclosures in most cases). There is a lot more than Qts as to how the driver will sound, and many opinions on it.
Qts is derived from Qes and Qms. Low Qts speakers have been said to sound more detailed than higher Qts speakers, which are supposed to sound more "smooth". Either way, I've found low Qts speakers to work well.
I would like to know your ideas on Low Qts drivers in vented boxes. I have personally had good success with them, would like to know what you think.
Adrian
Long Post
That happen to me also. Once you start making alot of post
you'll be flying in no time. Even if your using a 56K, like me.
Hey Yourself!!
I was just using what was desired on the link. Since it said
100 liter, I used 100 liter.
Well that explains everything. Here I'm looking at the graph
like WTF is going on with this speaker.
You keep saying this, but, I disagree. I would say its a matter
of application. I highly doubt I could feed the XLS, 1700 watts
RMS without some problems. (Thermal)
Yes. Your correct.
I have nothing against EQ's. I just prefer to get the desired
fb without the help of an eq.
I Agree. Carry on
It seems we have the same views
Nothing but success with low QTS in vented boxes, providing;
1. They are tuned correctly. (No humps)
2. I can offer them a enclosure, that gives me what I want.
I hate humps around 60 - 100Hz regions.
My goal is flat, and, rolling of (-3dB) to the desired fb.
macky888 said:
That happen to me also. Once you start making alot of post
you'll be flying in no time. Even if your using a 56K, like me.
Hey Yourself!!
I was just using what was desired on the link. Since it said
100 liter, I used 100 liter.
Well that explains everything. Here I'm looking at the graph
like WTF is going on with this speaker.
You keep saying this, but, I disagree. I would say its a matter
of application. I highly doubt I could feed the XLS, 1700 watts
RMS without some problems. (Thermal)
Yes. Your correct.
I have nothing against EQ's. I just prefer to get the desired
fb without the help of an eq.
I Agree. Carry on
It seems we have the same views
Nothing but success with low QTS in vented boxes, providing;
1. They are tuned correctly. (No humps)
2. I can offer them a enclosure, that gives me what I want.
I hate humps around 60 - 100Hz regions.
My goal is flat, and, rolling of (-3dB) to the desired fb.
However, Higher high QTS (0.3 - 0.4) plays the lower
octaves, louder, with less distortion, than lower
QTS drivers (0.1 - 0.2) Something that a box program
won't tell you, when looking at a graph.
I had a hard time figuring out why two cheap Pyramid 15's,
(40 a pop)were surpassing to Celestion (280 a pop) 15's
in 50 - 30hz region. Considering the Pyramid was 89 dB, and
the Celestion was 97 dB, I was like
Then I Finally Noticed
The QTS on the Pyramid was 0.37, and Celestion was 0.26
- 3dB on the Celestion was around 64Hz, where as the
Pyramid's - 3 dB was 38Hz (Normalized Gain) in a 9 cubic
foot (Internal) cubic foot enclosure. (2 drivers a box)
Ended up throwing the celestions in some front loaded
horns, and they never sounded so good. After that, I
started swapping speakers around in boxes, (15's/18's
in Horn Loaded to Reflex) And it totaly changed how I
looked at measurents (QTS, Normalized gain.)
Considering size was not an issue, I was not restricted performance do to cabinet size. So, now, I have the proper
QTS drivers loaded in the correct box, increased my output
by 50%. I was told by my mentors, I was using the
speakers wrong, boy were they right!
octaves, louder, with less distortion, than lower
QTS drivers (0.1 - 0.2) Something that a box program
won't tell you, when looking at a graph.
I had a hard time figuring out why two cheap Pyramid 15's,
(40 a pop)were surpassing to Celestion (280 a pop) 15's
in 50 - 30hz region. Considering the Pyramid was 89 dB, and
the Celestion was 97 dB, I was like
Then I Finally Noticed
The QTS on the Pyramid was 0.37, and Celestion was 0.26
- 3dB on the Celestion was around 64Hz, where as the
Pyramid's - 3 dB was 38Hz (Normalized Gain) in a 9 cubic
foot (Internal) cubic foot enclosure. (2 drivers a box)
Ended up throwing the celestions in some front loaded
horns, and they never sounded so good. After that, I
started swapping speakers around in boxes, (15's/18's
in Horn Loaded to Reflex) And it totaly changed how I
looked at measurents (QTS, Normalized gain.)
Considering size was not an issue, I was not restricted performance do to cabinet size. So, now, I have the proper
QTS drivers loaded in the correct box, increased my output
by 50%. I was told by my mentors, I was using the
speakers wrong, boy were they right!
Voice Coils
Hey Omni!
> You keep saying this, but, I disagree. I would say its a matter
> of application. I highly doubt I could feed the XLS, 1700 watts
> RMS without some problems. (Thermal)
I would doubt the LAB12 could do this either!
The person who I had purchased the XLS 830500 off about 2-3 years ago (it was William Cowan), he had extensivily tested this driver for capability. One of the tests involved running 1KW for extended periods of time into this driver. Other tests included destruction testing, thermal compression testing, distortion testing and T/S parameter shift testing. Without fail these tests have proved the 830500 to be a very capable driver.
And of course the construction qualitys which I've talked about in previous posts..... stuff like Shiva simply does not compare (but I am not saying it is a BAD sub, it just does not have the same qualities which I would like).
The Peerless XLS uses an Aluminium Voice Coil, which has better properties than Kapton, and handles more power. Kapton is fine for lower power applications. Alumium voice coils use a more heavy guage wire than kapton, and at the same time has good venting for cooling of the VC (Kapton in comparison uses only a little amount of venting...).
Adrian
Hey Omni!
> You keep saying this, but, I disagree. I would say its a matter
> of application. I highly doubt I could feed the XLS, 1700 watts
> RMS without some problems. (Thermal)
I would doubt the LAB12 could do this either!
The person who I had purchased the XLS 830500 off about 2-3 years ago (it was William Cowan), he had extensivily tested this driver for capability. One of the tests involved running 1KW for extended periods of time into this driver. Other tests included destruction testing, thermal compression testing, distortion testing and T/S parameter shift testing. Without fail these tests have proved the 830500 to be a very capable driver.
And of course the construction qualitys which I've talked about in previous posts..... stuff like Shiva simply does not compare (but I am not saying it is a BAD sub, it just does not have the same qualities which I would like).
The Peerless XLS uses an Aluminium Voice Coil, which has better properties than Kapton, and handles more power. Kapton is fine for lower power applications. Alumium voice coils use a more heavy guage wire than kapton, and at the same time has good venting for cooling of the VC (Kapton in comparison uses only a little amount of venting...).
Adrian
OMNIFEX said:However, Higher high QTS (0.3 - 0.4) plays the lower
octaves, louder, with less distortion, than lower
QTS drivers (0.1 - 0.2) Something that a box program
won't tell you, when looking at a graph.
I had a hard time figuring out why two cheap Pyramid 15's,
(40 a pop)were surpassing to Celestion (280 a pop) 15's
in 50 - 30hz region. Considering the Pyramid was 89 dB, and
the Celestion was 97 dB, I was like
Then I Finally Noticed
The QTS on the Pyramid was 0.37, and Celestion was 0.26
- 3dB on the Celestion was around 64Hz, where as the
Pyramid's - 3 dB was 38Hz (Normalized Gain) in a 9 cubic
foot (Internal) cubic foot enclosure. (2 drivers a box)
Ended up throwing the celestions in some front loaded
horns, and they never sounded so good. After that, I
started swapping speakers around in boxes, (15's/18's
in Horn Loaded to Reflex) And it totaly changed how I
looked at measurents (QTS, Normalized gain.)
Considering size was not an issue, I was not restricted performance do to cabinet size. So, now, I have the proper
QTS drivers loaded in the correct box, increased my output
by 50%. I was told by my mentors, I was using the
speakers wrong, boy were they right!
I have a feeling I just posted a message with only Omni's quoted message. lol I wish I could just get it right
Hey Omni!
Before I say what I was going to, just wondering why you bought the Pyramids? Their car audio stuff certainly IS crap... (I do know that yours are the home audio ones, or at least they probably are) but anyway.
That probably was not the optimum enclosure for BOTH drivers.
Cant argue with that.
Yes you were But you keep using the same sized enclosure for both speakers! When this may not be the optimum for both (or either...).
BTW: The Qts on my 18LW1400 is actually 0.29, and not 0.25 as listed on my website. Just thought I'd mention it.
Adrian
Hey Omni!
OMNIFEX said:I had a hard time figuring out why two cheap Pyramid 15's,
(40 a pop)were surpassing to Celestion (280 a pop) 15's
in 50 - 30hz region. Considering the Pyramid was 89 dB, and
the Celestion was 97 dB, I was like
Before I say what I was going to, just wondering why you bought the Pyramids? Their car audio stuff certainly IS crap... (I do know that yours are the home audio ones, or at least they probably are
) but anyway.Then I Finally Noticed
The QTS on the Pyramid was 0.37, and Celestion was 0.26
- 3dB on the Celestion was around 64Hz, where as the
Pyramid's - 3 dB was 38Hz (Normalized Gain) in a 9 cubic
foot (Internal) cubic foot enclosure. (2 drivers a box)
That probably was not the optimum enclosure for BOTH drivers.
Cant argue with that.
Yes you were
But you keep using the same sized enclosure for both speakers! When this may not be the optimum for both (or either...). BTW: The Qts on my 18LW1400 is actually 0.29, and not 0.25 as listed on my website. Just thought I'd mention it.
Adrian
>>>However, Higher high QTS (0.3 - 0.4) plays the lower
octaves, louder, with less distortion, than lower
QTS drivers (0.1 - 0.2) Something that a box program
won't tell you, when looking at a graph.
what u mean is,with ur certain situation,that Q gives a good response.it does vary.
there is a certain Q for the alignment that will cause a flat response.
>>>- 3dB on the Celestion was around 64Hz, where as the
>>>Pyramid's - 3 dB was 38Hz (Normalized Gain) in a 9 cubic
>>>foot (Internal) cubic foot enclosure.
u say that the pyramids sounded much better?
u cant say its Only due to the higher Q unless everything else is the same.
-3db is hardly percepable decreas in sound.
heres my sub with a 120hz crossover.no shelving evident.
( IT IS inefficient,and the way to fix that is to use 100litres tuned to 45hz or so) so in effect i am misusing my speaker slightly.but it will stil work
link
are u saying that the Only reason they sounded better is because they were flatter? eg no midbass shelving.
i have no problem using 3db EQ on a 97db speaker that doesnt need 500watts rms for my usage.
using 3db EQon a 87db speaker without heaps of power isnt a good idea.
perhaps also the celestion is suited to horns..but that isnt the argument.
octaves, louder, with less distortion, than lower
QTS drivers (0.1 - 0.2) Something that a box program
won't tell you, when looking at a graph.
what u mean is,with ur certain situation,that Q gives a good response.it does vary.
there is a certain Q for the alignment that will cause a flat response.
>>>- 3dB on the Celestion was around 64Hz, where as the
>>>Pyramid's - 3 dB was 38Hz (Normalized Gain) in a 9 cubic
>>>foot (Internal) cubic foot enclosure.
u say that the pyramids sounded much better?
u cant say its Only due to the higher Q unless everything else is the same.
-3db is hardly percepable decreas in sound.
heres my sub with a 120hz crossover.no shelving evident.
( IT IS inefficient,and the way to fix that is to use 100litres tuned to 45hz or so) so in effect i am misusing my speaker slightly.but it will stil work
link
are u saying that the Only reason they sounded better is because they were flatter? eg no midbass shelving.i have no problem using 3db EQ on a 97db speaker that doesnt need 500watts rms for my usage.
using 3db EQon a 87db speaker without heaps of power isnt a good idea.
perhaps also the celestion is suited to horns..but that isnt the argument.
Re: Voice Coils
It can. Two drivers, in a Lab Horn, on each channel of a
QSC 9.0 full tilt.
Yes. They are crap. But, you would be surprised what 8 of
these speakers (Four Double fifteens) can do, with 600
watts thrown to each woofer, and, a DBX 120 DS
Total price for each sub (Speakers, wood, & accessories)
$100.00
Your Right. The Celestion had the edge over the Pyramid,
being in a optimum box. LOL!! The Pyramid needed double
the size box used, and, still beat the Celestion.
Yes. I know. However, the 0.25 I mentioned, was for the
15 inch version, not 18.
What I mean is if if your using an optimum box with a
lower Q woofer, vs, an optimum box using a higher Q
woofer, the higher Q will beat the lower Q when it comes
to High SPL's in lower octaves (50Hz - down) In my situation, power wasn't an issue, nor enclosure size. I performed the
same test with an RCF 15, (0.39 QTS optimum enclosure) vs Celestion 15 (0.26 QTS Optimum enclosure) vs Pyramid 15
(0.37 QTS in a less than optimum enclosure) The RCF beat
all of them, as a matter of fact, the RCF sounded almost
as good as my Dual 18's. The 18's played lower which is
expected due to a lower Normalized Cutoff.
When your need these boxes to have a -3dB of 43Hz
minimum, (Normalized Gain) 64 Hertz is garbage.
I'll check it out, once I finish editing this post.
I'm saying I replaced the existing speaker EV in the front
loaded straight horn, because it (The Celestion) sounded
better, and, cleaner with the least amount of distortion
under high SPL use. The EV was louder, but had a lot of
distortion following right behind. (The QTS on the EV was 0.34)
Take Care!
macky888 said:
It can. Two drivers, in a Lab Horn, on each channel of a
QSC 9.0 full tilt.
macky888 said:
Hey Omni!
Before I say what I was going to, just wondering why you bought the Pyramids? Their car audio stuff certainly IS crap... (I do know that yours are the home audio ones, or at least they probably are
Yes. They are crap. But, you would be surprised what 8 of
these speakers (Four Double fifteens) can do, with 600
watts thrown to each woofer, and, a DBX 120 DS
Total price for each sub (Speakers, wood, & accessories)
$100.00
Your Right. The Celestion had the edge over the Pyramid,
being in a optimum box. LOL!! The Pyramid needed double
the size box used, and, still beat the Celestion.
Yes. I know. However, the 0.25 I mentioned, was for the
15 inch version, not 18.
mikee12345 said:
What I mean is if if your using an optimum box with a
lower Q woofer, vs, an optimum box using a higher Q
woofer, the higher Q will beat the lower Q when it comes
to High SPL's in lower octaves (50Hz - down) In my situation, power wasn't an issue, nor enclosure size. I performed the
same test with an RCF 15, (0.39 QTS optimum enclosure) vs Celestion 15 (0.26 QTS Optimum enclosure) vs Pyramid 15
(0.37 QTS in a less than optimum enclosure) The RCF beat
all of them, as a matter of fact, the RCF sounded almost
as good as my Dual 18's. The 18's played lower which is
expected due to a lower Normalized Cutoff.
When your need these boxes to have a -3dB of 43Hz
minimum, (Normalized Gain) 64 Hertz is garbage.
I'll check it out, once I finish editing this post.
I'm saying I replaced the existing speaker EV in the front
loaded straight horn, because it (The Celestion) sounded
better, and, cleaner with the least amount of distortion
under high SPL use. The EV was louder, but had a lot of
distortion following right behind. (The QTS on the EV was 0.34)
Take Care!
The crazy thing is, if I never understood how horns
work (To an extent) with speakers, I would have
never understood why higher QTS speakers work
best in reflex - sealed enclosures. (Providing your
using the right enclosure volume of course!)
My mentors Johan Van Zyl, Rog Mogule, Tom Danley, and,
Weggo Reed, have been telling me this from the first E mail.
I guess I was so caught up on the horn design, I forgot the
key elimate.
You Live, And Learn.
Hey !!!??? How did you get a
picture of the chart displayed in such a manner? I'm not
talking on the web, I'm talking, having the picture in general, availble to do as you please. Are you just taking a
picture using your digital camera, or are you using a
particular software?
work (To an extent) with speakers, I would have
never understood why higher QTS speakers work
best in reflex - sealed enclosures. (Providing your
using the right enclosure volume of course!)
My mentors Johan Van Zyl, Rog Mogule, Tom Danley, and,
Weggo Reed, have been telling me this from the first E mail.
I guess I was so caught up on the horn design, I forgot the
key elimate.
You Live, And Learn.
Hey !!!??? How did you get a picture of the chart displayed in such a manner? I'm not
talking on the web, I'm talking, having the picture in general, availble to do as you please. Are you just taking a
picture using your digital camera, or are you using a
particular software?
Horns
Hey Omni!
I love horns too I'm currently designing my new pair of main speakers based on horns, and will most likely use JBL 2370A horns with P.Audio SD-450N compression drivers (800Hz-20KHz) with compensation of course, I will be building two midrange tractrix horns which will load 8" Eighteen Sound 8M400 driver 200Hz-800Hz, and for the midbass (70Hz-200Hz) probably JBL 2226H or a 15LW1401. The Eighteen Sound 8M400 seems a very good candidate for horn loading, and Hornresp predicts very good results also. If you have any other suggestions on drivers for midrange tractrix horns, I would like to know!
Adrian
Hey Omni!
I love horns too
I'm currently designing my new pair of main speakers based on horns, and will most likely use JBL 2370A horns with P.Audio SD-450N compression drivers (800Hz-20KHz) with compensation of course, I will be building two midrange tractrix horns which will load 8" Eighteen Sound 8M400 driver 200Hz-800Hz, and for the midbass (70Hz-200Hz) probably JBL 2226H or a 15LW1401. The Eighteen Sound 8M400 seems a very good candidate for horn loading, and Hornresp predicts very good results also. If you have any other suggestions on drivers for midrange tractrix horns, I would like to know!Adrian
screenshots.
omni-
i think we must agree on most things..
i think we both admit
--that the 15inch700 does not give quite the optimum response without eq.
..but with no other choice! its good enough.Not ideal,but ok.
because it is 97db i can afford 3db of Eq.
if i was wanting true(normalised as u say) -3db at 34hz a shiva would do it better BUT it happens to be 10db less efficient and does more 20hz bass ofcourse but cant match the effiency in the midbass.
re: posting screenshots - Does the link work that i posted last time???
how do i make it you ask??
press the print screen button on your keyboard. and it wil take a screenshot. Then go to paint or whatever.>go to Paste(control+V)
,and it Should paste what u had displayed on the screen at that time.
:-D save as a JPEG or else it will be VERY LARGE and no one wil b bothered waiting for it to download :-D
www.linearteam.org >winisd the newest unreleased version does filters
------------i enjoy ppl that make me think-----------
omni-
i think we must agree on most things..
i think we both admit
--that the 15inch700 does not give quite the optimum response without eq.
..but with no other choice! its good enough.Not ideal,but ok.
because it is 97db i can afford 3db of Eq.
if i was wanting true(normalised as u say) -3db at 34hz a shiva would do it better BUT it happens to be 10db less efficient and does more 20hz bass ofcourse but cant match the effiency in the midbass.
re: posting screenshots - Does the link work that i posted last time???
how do i make it you ask??
press the print screen button on your keyboard. and it wil take a screenshot. Then go to paint or whatever.>go to Paste(control+V)
,and it Should paste what u had displayed on the screen at that time.
:-D save as a JPEG or else it will be VERY LARGE and no one wil b bothered waiting for it to download :-D
www.linearteam.org >winisd the newest unreleased version does filters
------------i enjoy ppl that make me think-----------
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.