Break in time for TC Sounds 12's? - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Subwoofers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27th May 2012, 03:36 AM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Default Break in time for TC Sounds 12's?

I bought a LMS-r 12" and expect that it will be quite a sound quality unit eventually. Right now what I hear is really deep with insane power handling. I have had a number of subs and this is by far the best combo of SPL and low frequency grunt unit I've had so far but I wasnt looking for that. The detail/accuracy though isn't really that great. I assume its due to a stiff new cone that will need to break in and loosen up so the motor can move the cone easier.

Does anyone have any input as to how long it took for theirs to start to settle in and show off the strong SQ qualities? I was concerned about the high MMS but they had a great following. I'd give up SPL for quality. Other metal cone 12's were more detailed in this same application but its too early to tell. Its in a slightly overdamped 2 cubic foot box ported to 25hz, same amp, same electronics across the board.

Anyone have any break in observations?

Update for those who didnt read through this thread:

The 2.05 cube box with a 25hz tuning was really bad sounding. Its just an average EBS alignment and had plodding flat undetailed sound in my truck. I reduced box volume to 1.7 cubes and tuned to 27hz and the group delay dropped and the sound was very detailed as what I was looking for. I suspect that a 1.4 cube box tuned to 27 would be the best overall for -3db point, group delay, and SQ all in one. It only loses 3hz in extension but group delay fell from 31 to 23ms. The reduction of air makes it react much faster to music. I was ready to send it back but its exactly what I wanted now with the added benefit that I lost nothing in deep bass and SPL. Slight changes in specs of your box make all the differenc in the world.

Last edited by SpinMonster; 30th May 2012 at 04:48 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2012, 06:03 AM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
art West-VL.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: West Vlaanderen
You could hit it with brown noise for 48 hours, if the neighbors permit it.
Alternatively you could use pink noise and put a heavy iron core inductor in series with the driver (about 4mH).
About a hundred Watts max if you don't want to cook the voice coil.
__________________
Break in your loudspeakers at 35% RMS power Right-click'save as...'
Brown noise mono 192kbps(hit "repeat")
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2012, 06:52 AM   #3
NEO Dan is offline NEO Dan  United States
diyAudio Member
 
NEO Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: N.E. Ohio
Use REW to make 10-30 Hz pink noise or <30 pink noise.
__________________
Regards,
Dan
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2012, 07:47 AM   #4
Calvin is offline Calvin  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Calvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: close to Basel
Hi,

Im very confident with the TCs. They are outstanding drivers regarding the combination of weight and slam on one hand and low level resolution on the other hand. Instead of break-In Id say that the casing, the alignment or maybe positioning are responsible for sub-optimum sound.
If SPL were my sole aim, Id probabely also opt for Bassfreflex. If it were for best quality/accuracy at sufficiently high SPL Id put the driver in a closed box. Since for the most a subwoofer works under pressure chamber conditions where the amplitude response of the room and the -12dB/oct curve of a CB sub counter each other, the needed amount of LF-equalizing remains low and efficiency is high.
I never came across a BR-subwoofer that could play as exact as a CB- or MFB-sub, the problem getting worse with every Hz of lower alignment of the BR.
The TCs can perform extremely high excursions and their parameter set is optimized for small casings. A such their moving masses are unusually high.
I was also conerned about those high masses before, because I learned lowmass-school. But I had to change my opinion on first listening. The low level resolution of the TCs sets them far apart from other clunky high-mass car-audio drivers which usually can just put out a single boom and need hundreds of watts of input knocking at their connectors to realize some music is at the front door asking in. I call such drivers mud-pusher
The TCs certainly look like such, but sonically they most defintely are not.
They require really stiff, strong casings, especially with small volume CBs.
I even tend to say, that wooden casings may not be the path to Endor.
Rather try metal, stone, concrete or similar exotics. Itd be also good to mount two drivers in push-pull opposing positions to cancel the mechanical impulses.
As for break-in, let the drivers run freeair. Working as dipole the SPL at very low frequencies is low, so You wont harm neighbours (<20Hz over night). Second the wattage needed for high excursions remains low or in opposite, the required high excursions are reached at already low input levels. I use repeating sine shaped bursts of very low and infrasonic frequencies over a 24h-48h period. Ive seen parameter changes uf up to 20% over the break-In period, but not with the TCs. They hardly changed at all.

jauu
Calvin

Last edited by Calvin; 27th May 2012 at 07:50 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2012, 09:41 AM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvin View Post
Ive seen parameter changes uf up to 20% over the break-In period, but not with the TCs. They hardly changed at all.

jauu
Calvin

Are you saying it didnt change the sound after break in? If thats the case, it goes back to parts express. Low level detail isnt what I'm hearing. The type of box is what I'm using regardless what sub I own. If its not going to work, I'll try something else.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2012, 10:40 AM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
speakrsrfun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Toronto
There are three variables in this situation that contribute to SQ,

#1 The enclosure
#2 The vehicle/room
#3 The TC sounds driver

Without the addressing of each individually, then as a whole, your bound to be disappointed with whatever sub you do end up choosing. 90% of all bad sound quality in car audio is due to bad box/enclosure design, mismatch of enclosure to cars resonances, and really bad tuning and very rarely the sub driver itself. If your not willing to build an enclosure that is optimized for the TC driver, and designed to work well with your vehicles/rooms cabin/room resonances then I'm afraid your S.O.L. and will find most subs lacking in the SQ dept.

Solutions are not as easy as "I'll try something else" when it comes to the science of loudspeaker design, sometimes you have to bend and attack the real problem before accepting defeat.

I installed an TC epic 12" in my good friends Civic, based on cabin gain, cabin size and with a reasonable tuning of the box we had a system that is very dynamic, loud, articulate and quarter panel pounding. ended up being a 2cubed slot loaded design tuned to about 35hz. In car response is quite good into the 20's with more than enough output to serve most people. He is happy needless to say.

Don't give up so easy on the TC driver, if your not willing to bend to improve performance your not giving one hell of a good driver it's fair chance. Just my .02$
__________________
What was that?... I can't hear you I have a line array filling my ears.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2012, 06:40 AM   #7
Calvin is offline Calvin  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Calvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: close to Basel
Hi,

I regard it as a positive sign, if parameters dont change much compared against the values right out of the cartonage. Its a sign that the driver has already had its break-in period.
After TCs DS a 2cft casing tuned to 25-28hz should be ok, if the coild are connected in series, for 4-Ohm loading. How did You wire the coils?
Quote:
Don't give up so easy on the TC driver, if your not willing to bend to improve performance your not giving one hell of a good driver it's fair chance. Just my .02$
Exactly, right to the point.

jauu
Calvin
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2012, 07:46 AM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Quote:
Originally Posted by speakrsrfun View Post
There are three variables in this situation that contribute to SQ,

#1 The enclosure
#2 The vehicle/room
#3 The TC sounds driver

Without the addressing of each individually, then as a whole, your bound to be disappointed with whatever sub you do end up choosing. 90% of all bad sound quality in car audio is due to bad box/enclosure design, mismatch of enclosure to cars resonances, and really bad tuning and very rarely the sub driver itself. If your not willing to build an enclosure that is optimized for the TC driver, and designed to work well with your vehicles/rooms cabin/room resonances then I'm afraid your S.O.L. and will find most subs lacking in the SQ dept.

Solutions are not as easy as "I'll try something else" when it comes to the science of loudspeaker design, sometimes you have to bend and attack the real problem before accepting defeat.

I installed an TC epic 12" in my good friends Civic, based on cabin gain, cabin size and with a reasonable tuning of the box we had a system that is very dynamic, loud, articulate and quarter panel pounding. ended up being a 2cubed slot loaded design tuned to about 35hz. In car response is quite good into the 20's with more than enough output to serve most people. He is happy needless to say.

Don't give up so easy on the TC driver, if your not willing to bend to improve performance your not giving one hell of a good driver it's fair chance. Just my .02$

Hi, great points you bring up.

I guess a little more info would help. This is the box that was built for the automotive application although I had it in my house all day today to compare it to my many other projects.

Its a 2.2 cubic foot box, but by putting in sealed cubes to reduce net internal volume, I can reduce it to 1.75 but I havent tried anything other that the current 2.05 cubic foot net set-up. The box is heavily braced and I can assure you its perfectly sealed. The vent is 13 x 2" and 47" long (48 net with the sidewall contributing another inch). As I lower internal volume the tuning moves up slightly due to the fixed nature of the vent length. I build two dozen boxes a year from mini-monitors to 400lb subs. IE: I'm not a newbie.

Click the image to open in full size.

The applications I used prior were an aluminum cone 10" with a 14mm Xmax and Bl of 14. MMS was 136g. It was clearly more detailed. Would a move to the scan speak 10" that is similar to this be a better SQ? Other drivers were 10's and 12's from infinity to alpine. All were ported max flat alignments using the same equipment inside and outside the house.

In my home theater, the detail seemed much better. Is it possibly a EQ issue in the car just making it sound bloated? I will try using my 1/3 octave Behringer EQ/rta on it this week.

It did lossen up a bit but the result was an astonishing increase with how deep it can play. Individual bass notes seem blurred in the mix still.

Would a drop in box volume and rise in tuning frequency make it overcome the air load behind it more? I had heard the extended bass shelf alignments like this are less detailed. Max flat is 1.75 cubes tuned to about 26hz. Im at 2.05 tuned to about 24. 15% less air in the box may make the cone respond faster. I'm thinking it must have a subjective effect.

Last edited by SpinMonster; 28th May 2012 at 07:52 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2012, 08:00 AM   #9
Boscoe is offline Boscoe  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: England
I believe break in doesn't improve sound it just changes it. I also believe break in was a term made up by HiFi dealers to excuse the reason people didn't like their new upgrades and to keep them from refunding people until the people got used to the new sound and learnt to like it.
__________________
I thought about it once, but then thought again.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2012, 08:02 AM   #10
Boscoe is offline Boscoe  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: England
If you want ture HiFi the best way to go about it is to stick it in a sealed box with some EQ and a very large amplifier uin the order of about 1000Wrms.
__________________
I thought about it once, but then thought again.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TC Sounds Projects? Pano Subwoofers 5 28th July 2010 11:26 AM
TC Sounds (aka Audiopulse) LMT TC-9 (predecessor to LMS) DavidJanszen Swap Meet 1 5th June 2008 05:32 PM
New TC Sounds Subs (pics) Patrick Bateman Subwoofers 2 9th January 2007 08:28 PM
TC Sounds herm Subwoofers 3 14th May 2006 12:48 PM
TC Sounds TC2+ subwoofer tktran Subwoofers 16 20th May 2004 01:36 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:59 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2