Why XLS not SLS?
I know that the Peerless XLS' are great air movers... big, and long displacement.
However, I've tried to model a box with WinISD. Just like their application notes conclude, a 6th order bandpass or passive radiator is the only way of getting these to work below 40 Hz.
With intended use for a sub below maybe 80 Hz, there's not much point in having this driver, if it's impossible for ordinary people to build a good sub-woofer with.
also, if going for vented, the port will need to be HUGE!
Even so, the XLS seem to be designed to work with massive amplifiers (400W in their application note), and equalized to obtain decent performance.
The SLS, by comparison, rolls off much lower than the XLS in the same 150 liter (!) cabinet, without active EQ'ing.
Thus, I am considering an array of 4 SLS' (2 in series, 2 of these sets in parallel), as building a box seems much easier for real life people.
Can anyone tell me a success-story with XLS subs, and how they build them?
You've already stated why, it's because it is designed to be used with the matching passive radiator. I think many "ordinary people" have built subs this way.
You're probably right that it is not as easy in application as the SLS. But add a PR, or EQ in sealed enclosure and it gives results, not to mention its low distortion levels. Also, there are now a new range available, XXLS I think, with different T/S and will give you more options in the modeling sense.
Not interested in using a PR? http://www.vikash.info/audio/xls10/
Yes, I've just seen the XXLS drivers, and modeled with one of them.
THEY ROCK ! ! ! ! ! ! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
|All times are GMT. The time now is 05:06 PM.|
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2013 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2013 diyAudio