Just a suggestion;
Why not running just 2 Xoc1-TH18's and load them with a better 4 Ohm driver? That way you are saving space, extra wood (you can use those $ for the drivers) and end up with a better and smaller system...
1 x 2450 on the 4 ohm subs (2 x 750 @ 4Ohm)
1 x 2450 on the lows of the SP2's (2 x 500 @ 8Ohm)
1 x 850 on the high section of the SP2's (2 x 200 @ 8Ohm)
Later on you can update (if really necessary but I doubt that) to another 2450 so you can run them bridged for each cab.
how about running 1 2450 bridged 4 ohm into 2 Xoc1-TH18 loaded with the 18 Sound 18lw2400 driver. some of the good drivers are hard to get in the states.
You saved yourself 2 builds, that extra time you can use for tracing them
im an engineer for a woodworking company so i have access to cnc machines. i'll just write a program to dado the uprights 1/8" deep for all the internal panels. easier then tracing them....
I hope you understand by making us drool with your fancy CNC possibilities, you have to come up with something exclusive. Anyway, keep us posted and meanwhile I'll jump in bed, it's already daylight (as usual).
It depends on how you look to it and its also a personal thing.
The P.Audio's will probably generate more distortion which is often related to 'harder hitting' kicks. Of course there is a reason for the price difference and if you compare overall quality the 18Sound (or other drivers from the latest generation for example B&C, RCF, BMS and others) will out perform the P.Audio's in my opinion. Of course it's your decision but in fact you are comparing two different types of drivers from a very different price range.
Another argument you should consider, you can't hook 4 P.Audio's to a bridged 2450 since it really doesn't like 2Ohm loads in Bridged configuration. So you have to power 2 cabs per channel (2 x 750) while you can power 18Sounds from the bridged configuration (2 x 1200).
Last edited:
I actually think there should be a child or sub forum within loudspeakers for PA, instead of all of it being in multi-driver or sub forum.
Originally Posted by Djim
The Xmax of the P audio is a calculated Xmax and Peavey's Xmax is...well... everything but calculated (I'll try to be nice). So you can't compare these figures one on one. Forget about Xmax and look at the AES power ratings.
Peavey Low Rider 15:
3200 Watts peak
1600 Watts program 1600 Watts program
800 Watts continuous per AES 2-1984, 800 Watts continuous per AES 2-1984, 40 Hz – 400 Hz 50 Hz – 500 Hz
One can use a pair of cheap, decent speakers and achieve more output than one excellent, expensive speaker like the B&C 18SW115-4 (perhaps the best).
For applications requiring maximum LF SPL output per cubic foot, the extra money spent on an excellent speaker and adequate power to realize it's potential is worth it.
For those without those requirements, there are plenty of decent speakers out that will work well in tapped horns.
Art
The Xmax of the P audio is a calculated Xmax and Peavey's Xmax is...well... everything but calculated (I'll try to be nice). So you can't compare these figures one on one. Forget about Xmax and look at the AES power ratings.
Oh.
Peavey Low Rider 15:
3200 Watts peak
1600 Watts program 1600 Watts program
800 Watts continuous per AES 2-1984, 800 Watts continuous per AES 2-1984, 40 Hz – 400 Hz 50 Hz – 500 Hz
One can use a pair of cheap, decent speakers and achieve more output than one excellent, expensive speaker like the B&C 18SW115-4 (perhaps the best).
For applications requiring maximum LF SPL output per cubic foot, the extra money spent on an excellent speaker and adequate power to realize it's potential is worth it.
For those without those requirements, there are plenty of decent speakers out that will work well in tapped horns.
Art
My point is that I found the Peavey Low Rider 15 is a speaker available for under $200 that performs well in fairly low tuned tapped horns. Someone had asked about them, you dismissed the low rider Xmax figures.
You seem more concerned about the power rating than Xmax.
Having listened to a variety of speakers in BR and TH, I find that speakers pushed much above Xmax usually sound like crap, regardless of the power rating.
Without listening to both speakers in the same cabinet, I have no idea which I'd prefer. Hornresp is a good start in predicting frequency and excursion response, but won't tell you how the speaker sounds when beat hard, the usual life of a PA sub.
Anyway, I'm very happy with my BC18SW115-4 loaded Keystone tapped horns, so my opinions are academic, I have no horse in this race.
I'll be interested in seeing the results if anyone builds this thread's design.
I expect it to work fine, since it is nearly a copy of DSL's TH-18, with some extra ramps added, but a throat feature left out.
Art
Art
I have already admitted to copying the physical size of a Danley TH118
but the rest of the design is pure DIYaudio inspired.
I have never even seen a Danley loudspeaker, and don't expect to any time soon. I live in a little town on the south coast of Devon England.
Regards
Martin
Okay, got your point. First of all, we were talking 18" here (this thread is about the Xoc1) and there seems to be a big price difference between the P.Audio and the Peavey.
The reason why I was using some degree of sarcasm for the Peavey's parameters is because I do know how far they can get off (talking about tolerances). That's the reason why I didn't like to explain and kept it to "I'll try to be nice". I'll PM you more details if you like.
About my considerations in the specific request from Scameron, he stated "would a peavey lowrider or one of the eminence 18" drivers work in this cabinet. i was getting ready to cut 2 of jbell's SS15, but i saw this thread".
That meant to me he wasn't going to use high power if JBells SS15 were considered in the first place. However, high AES power ratings do tell you something about low thermal power compression figures. In my opinion that is of a much higher importance than high Xmax numbres in this case.
Also I tried to show the importance of the differences in the Xmax numbres from different brands. Take your beloved B&C for instance. The calculated Xmax = 10mm but its 10% THD point is set out at 14mm.
In relation to the P.Audio, the Xmax of 5,25mm is also calculated. The 10% THD point will be millimetres beyond. All I was trying to say is how relative Xmax numbres are.
Totally agree, although an 18Sound 18LW2400 or something similar from B&C, RCF, BMS, PD and some others, will do also in his situation and will give a better price/performance ratio, I think.
Last edited:
a local band here uses a pair of EV MTL 4s. not sure how much power is supplied to them, but they did move a lot of air. course they should with 8-18" drivers. anyways, from my understanding the drivers EV used in them had some very limiting specifications. seems like a bunch of cheap drivers. anyways, the 18lw2400 driver seems to be a monster and at $339 each, i better do all the homework i can. most of the venues we play are small maybe 100 to 300 people throughout the night with about 4 or 5 outdoor shows. i guess it makes sense to just save a little more money and purchase 4 18lw2400 drivers and build 4 boxes of some sort for them. i like this design, but i have also been looking at the Cyclops. i like the efficiency jbell's ss15 produces with out monster power. but like said above, it's a personal decision.
Martin,Art
I have already admitted to copying the physical size of a Danley TH118
but the rest of the design is pure DIYaudio inspired.
I have never even seen a Danley loudspeaker, and don't expect to any time soon. I live in a little town on the south coast of Devon England.
Regards
Martin
There are only so many fold patterns available in a TH that copies the TH-118 external dimensions, you have come quite close, just with some extra parts added and a few left out.
Since this design is the same fold that I originally came up with for the ss15.... should that make me go hmmm?????