Nope, not a good fit.
So - the 3015LF was blown - how did it die?
smaller -- yes
louder -- 1:1 cabinets, close, 2small : 1big cabinet, definitely louder with 2x drivers and 2xpower
lower -- not a chance, the big cabinet thunders at 40hz and a little lower.
lighter -- definitely
can take more power before hitting xmax 40hz on up -- yes
small cabinet can be used 1 at a time -- not really.
no high pass kills both quickly
Keep in mind, if you go back to page one of this thread -- the big cabinet was thrown together in a day with LilMike's help, tested the next, and a quad completed by end of week. Elegance and design was at a minimum.... I was just happy it worked as the FLH design I had been banking on sucked at 40hz. I had even thought at that time I had built something with a 235cm path, don was kind enough to show me I had built a 270...
The big cabinet is a great install cabinet, or outdoor cabinet where you need it's amazing directionality, and/or you need mid to upper 30's.
What would be really cool is a thread with what I see as the 'continuum' of DIY PA TH cabinets. An example might be: Start with Flipc's MiniClone, then 'potentially' something like this cube, ScreamersUSA's furybox, and then on up to the big cabinet, or something like that. List out the plans, dimensions, costs, and trade offs.
In general terms, I like the furybox as an all around, do it all cabinet. I like the big box for installs that don't have to go up high. I like the dual MCM FLH for the best bang for the buck. I just need a smaller/cheaper/faster install cabinet right now. These gymnasium installs I've been doing just don't need as much bass as the big cab can deliver, and my back would be happier if they were lighter.
So, as they say, necessity is the mother of....
JBell
I have thought the same thing in regards to a thread strictly for the comparisons of cost vs trade offs.
Since I built the Apache instead of the
Furybox I cant compare just yet. I will build that Furybox but right now just to much on my plate. BUT they model almost identically and I do like the Apache.
Would love to start a collective
project. Design 3 TH's. 1 at 90-110 Lt. 1 at 200-300 Lt. One around 500 Lt.
All 3 have multiple choice of drop in drivers. Which as a side note the new Dayton pro 12" will drop in the mini clone and perform well specially for the price tag.
And since 3 Cubes fit into the space
of 1 Big JBTh (you every name that thing?) I like the trade off. BUT this has been my dilemma since I made my mini clone. I can fit 4 into the space of 1 Apache (roughly) ... wish I weren't an addict.
You think about using the Pyle 21" driver ?
I have thought the same thing in regards to a thread strictly for the comparisons of cost vs trade offs.
Since I built the Apache instead of the
Furybox I cant compare just yet. I will build that Furybox but right now just to much on my plate. BUT they model almost identically and I do like the Apache.
Would love to start a collective
project. Design 3 TH's. 1 at 90-110 Lt. 1 at 200-300 Lt. One around 500 Lt.
All 3 have multiple choice of drop in drivers. Which as a side note the new Dayton pro 12" will drop in the mini clone and perform well specially for the price tag.
And since 3 Cubes fit into the space
of 1 Big JBTh (you every name that thing?) I like the trade off. BUT this has been my dilemma since I made my mini clone. I can fit 4 into the space of 1 Apache (roughly) ... wish I weren't an addict.
You think about using the Pyle 21" driver ?
Flip:
no on the dayton, the 5mm xmax and a heavy hand on the volume knob has kept me from trying it, but the price is right.. and for miniclones? hmmm have to think on that one.
No... on the pyle 21. (maybe on a mtx someday....)
As far as naming the big cabinet? stadiumhorn? Is that too boring or predictable? That's what I call it when considering it for other installs. How about TH3 for the cube?
More smaller boxes + more power = more noise in less space, with more $$$ spent. It's the $$$ spent that keeps me coming back to the big box in certain cases. For under stage or on top of pressbox installs -- it's the tops in my book. When you can use a single xti to power 4 of the big box TH and 4 tops, it's a killer cheap-o combo. (Entire DIY pa under $2k that will drown out $5-$10k setups)
my 2c:
A 5mm xmax and 16mm xlim on the omega sounds like it was made for only one kind of sound... I couldn't sim any reasonable TH configuration and apply more than 100watts before exceeding 5mm.
Personally I think they need to go in the reflex box they were designed for, and let them sound like they were designed to sound.
A 5mm xmax and 16mm xlim on the omega sounds like it was made for only one kind of sound... I couldn't sim any reasonable TH configuration and apply more than 100watts before exceeding 5mm.
Personally I think they need to go in the reflex box they were designed for, and let them sound like they were designed to sound.
Your drawing looks better than my construction !
I'm about ready to start testing -- will let you know what braces/baffles are needed.
thanks
Attachments
4 Big uns vs 8 Little uns
Cubic inches:
4 Big uns:
4 x 36 x 46 x 24 = 158 976
8 Little uns:
8 x 24 x 24 x 24 = 110 592
Wood:
4 Big uns:
8 Sheets 0.75 inch plywood
8 Little uns:
8 sheets 0.50 inch plywood
Drivers:
4 Big uns:
4 Kappalite 3015lf
8 Little uns:
8 Kappalite 3015lf
What does it cost us? I'm guessing the US guys have cheaper plywood, so you are happy to build big high efficiency boxes.
In my case the wood makes costs almost as much as the driver on the big boxes.
Regards, Ben
Cubic inches:
4 Big uns:
4 x 36 x 46 x 24 = 158 976
8 Little uns:
8 x 24 x 24 x 24 = 110 592
Wood:
4 Big uns:
8 Sheets 0.75 inch plywood
8 Little uns:
8 sheets 0.50 inch plywood
Drivers:
4 Big uns:
4 Kappalite 3015lf
8 Little uns:
8 Kappalite 3015lf
What does it cost us? I'm guessing the US guys have cheaper plywood, so you are happy to build big high efficiency boxes.
In my case the wood makes costs almost as much as the driver on the big boxes.
Regards, Ben
That's a small mouth. The driver is going to be mounted magnet out? Looks like that might shade a significant part of the mouth and cause a drop in efficiency and a noticeable change in frequency response that may not be desirable. Some of my experiments with my POC #1 suggest that even a small amount of shading was enough to noticeably impact efficiency.
I need to learn not to open my mouth on stuff like this until I'm complete... oh well.
In terms of shading, installing driver etc... I don't think it'll be an issue, however only testing will tell for sure. One thing I've typically noticed, is magnet in mouth plays 'by ear' lower, which usually shows up in tests as more 40hz and less 100hz. Where this design is a little lacking in the 40hz department until you get to a block of 4, I'm hoping it plays to my advantage.
One thing I ALWAYS do, is mount the driver to the baffle board before any assembly happens. That way I can always exactly center the driver, and there are no surprises. When cabinet is done, it's a simple thing to reinstall screws or bolts.
With it being 23" internal dimension, and over an inch between magnet and cabinet -- installation of driver is easy.
Attachments
Last edited:
I need to start doing some of that too!
Forward planning, that is
Next build (which will be these cabinets if they get the JBell field trial seal of approval) I will install the the driver using hurricane nuts and bolts before putting the side on.
Regards, Ben
P.S. I'd love to see this compared with a T24 - isn't that supposed to be pretty good bang for buck? Not just on paper, but a side by side test. I am not building any more BFM subs, as I don't feel they do quite what I want, so I can't test them.
P.P.S. thanks not jumping on my silly question!
Forward planning, that is
Next build (which will be these cabinets if they get the JBell field trial seal of approval) I will install the the driver using hurricane nuts and bolts before putting the side on.
Regards, Ben
P.S. I'd love to see this compared with a T24 - isn't that supposed to be pretty good bang for buck? Not just on paper, but a side by side test. I am not building any more BFM subs, as I don't feel they do quite what I want, so I can't test them.
P.P.S. thanks not jumping on my silly question!
Last edited:
Hi jbell,
In addition to your version, that shoots for maximum low frequency extension, you might also want to investigate a version w/ flatter midfrequency response. It might provide some useful upper frequency extension, as well as (very) slightly improved excursion control.
Regards,
In addition to your version, that shoots for maximum low frequency extension, you might also want to investigate a version w/ flatter midfrequency response. It might provide some useful upper frequency extension, as well as (very) slightly improved excursion control.
Regards,
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.