You don't need 1" thick panels for an enclosure with all those internal baffles. For an ordinary large vented box, yes. Here, it's just ballast, and 3/4 fir ply will suffice. Fortunately the locals (Freres) know how to make good plywood up the road at Lyons, but you have to specify what you want. A lot of PA subs are getting built out of 1/2" but that's getting pretty light, with little actual glue area to keep the buzzing down. The 16 Hz TH my friend built was 3/4 fir ply, with 4 LAB 12 drivers.
Last edited:
Art, Thank you for you reply. Does that mean that the DTS10 would be a viable design? I know many types of enclosures have been spoken of in this topic, but I don't want to go through the money, time and effort to have a failure. The odd thing that keep plaguing me is that the TL design that I believe I gave a link to from Owen Jones (who is a pipe organ person, knowing what a pipe organ sounds and feels like) and having him build the enclosure that he built with the driver that he used, the FS-Audio 18" Replacement Driver Subwoofer Speaker gave him the desired results. That is why I thought all I needed to do was effectively copy his design, even if I had to buy the driver he bought. Just to recap, here is his finished design. He used 3/4" MDF and the only thing he needed to do was reinforce the walls after the build. Here is the design with the addition of the additional bracing.
My post was too long with the addition of images, so I made a PDF for it. Here is the whole post, if you would like to read it: POST
Thank you,
Steven
My post was too long with the addition of images, so I made a PDF for it. Here is the whole post, if you would like to read it: POST
Thank you,
Steven
MDF is largely used in many commercial loudspeakers solely because it is cheap. Cheap to buy, cheap to machine, cheap to finish. It is not trally suitable for building a quality speaker, and very much so for a subwoofer where stiffness rules. 18mm quality plywood (good baltic birch or something like the Murphy ply we use) is roughly equivalent to 1/25” MDF in stiffness and has other properties that make it superior (we built our last subwoofer out of well-braced 15mm). Your back will also thank you. Compared to everything else the cost of the panel material is only a small bit… use good plywood, anything else is a waste of money.
dave
We standardized on 15mm for most of our builds even when 12mm would do. 12mm is skinny enuff to make fabrication difficult.
dave
Steven,
1) Yes, the DTS-10 is a viable design for low frequency reproduction of the 16 Hz pipe at pipe-organ SPL levels, which is why I recommended it, as the measured response proves it is capable.
2) Many designs have been spoken of, the DTS-10 is the only design that has measurements proving it's output will do what you desire. That said, you have not stated a specific goal of "X" dB at 16 Hz- the DTS-10 may be more level than you actually "need" to fulfill your desires.
I own a Mackie HRS120 sub that can make drywall stud walls "flap" at around 15-20 Hz, I was surprised to find it only was putting out around 100 dB down that low- the DTS-10 can put out around 115 dB at 16 Hz.
3) One fact that is frequently ignored is the harmonic content of LF notes always carry multiples of the fundamental. One therefore can still "hear" the 16.35 Hz "C" as lower than the 32.7 Hz "C", even on a system with just 32 Hz LF response, as the lower octave harmonic intervals will be just half of the same note an octave above throughout the range more easily reproduced, and more easily heard.
It actually takes around 10 dB more SPL to perceive 16 Hz at an equal level as 32 Hz.
From looking at many LF designs for sampled pipe organ use, it is obvious (to me) that most rely on the harmonics, rather than the fundamentals to convey the sense of "weight" of the lowest notes.
This would easily be shown with loudspeaker measurements, but measurements don't sell organ speakers
.And since very few are willing to pay for the size, weight, and expense premium required to actually reproduce the octave below "C" 32.7 Hz at the same SPL as those above, there is little incentive to market such a product.
Art
A tapped horn is able to reproduce to very low frequencies in a quite small box. To do this it gives up bandwidth. It is a fall-out of the greatly expemded TL design space that realistic modelers brought to the table.
I’d call doing this design a no-brainer. Well executed & proven.
dave
This comes down to what Art said about harmonic content in pipe organ reproducers. The TL you are considering will do the 32 Hz and up part, while suggesting the lowest octave because of the line length and reduced vent area, but no substantial 16 hz response will be generated by a PA driver with a 40 Hz fs. The DTS-10 is an order of magnitude better for your stated goal.
Can we presume church sanctuaries will be the rooms in which this system is played? You mentioned 8' ceiling height, which sounds more like a meeting room.
Can we presume church sanctuaries will be the rooms in which this system is played? You mentioned 8' ceiling height, which sounds more like a meeting room.
Last edited:
Bjorno,Hi All,
FYI: HR Tombola in SQ Mode:
b
Cryptic as usual!
Nice simulations- those Hornresp lottery winners are both more than 33% larger than the DTS-10, and the drivers cost a lot more than the OP wants to pay, but hey, we don't have to move or pay for them
.Art
Last edited:
I have to be prepared for church use, nursing home use and school use and to be safe, I choose a size that would fit any normal indoor doorway.
I know that seems odd, but with the popularity and availability of the virtual sampled organs and relatively little cost to create a 5-manual and pedal organ, you could have it in your bedroom and it would sound like you were in Westminster Abby. Of course you need the audio system and other compliment of speakers to get the best sound, but if you close your eyes, you would think you were in a giant cathedral. It is a real mind-trip to be in a small room and get that kind of sound. The link I provided was a 20' X 30' (or 30' X 40') room, I know they have concerts there for 30-40 people, so that is how many people will fit in the space. If that were a pipe organ. it would be very large with the several ranks of 32s it has, not to mention the 16s. Those take a lot or room, plus a pipe organ of the size that organ is effectively reproducing (it was a custom job), it would cost a few million dollars to build and then you would need that very large stone building to put it in...Ideally a church.
They have sample sets for organs of only 2 or 3 ranks and then on the top (currently, the FCCLA [ First Congregational Church of Los Angeles]). Here is what their website says about the organ, "The Great Organs of First Church, situated in the enormous vaulted Sanctuary of Los Angeles' oldest Protestant Church, together constitute perhaps the largest musical instrument existing in any church in the world today. Now, with approximately 346 ranks, 265 stops, 233 voices, 18 divisions and more than 20,000 pipes, the Great Organs speak down the Nave and Chancel and from the South and North Transept Galleries with the music of the ages." It IS the largest church organ in the world at this time. One of my personal projects, for myself (and for a performance instrument is to build a replica of the USNA console, but use the FCCLA sample set, as the USNA already has many digital ranks in it, so it is doubtful that it will ever be sampled. The console is gorgeous though and that is my own personal dream along with a reproduction of the Enlarged version of the Brooklyn Wurlitzer in the Publix 4 Case and using the Paramount 4/50 (4-manual, 50 rank) theatre organ. Those are my tow personal dreams. For the public organs that are not repairable, we can provide then, the free version of Hauptwerk which comes with a free sample set of a small English organ. You can also get free sample sets that work with Hauptwerk for various sites. The ones you pay for, can be quite hefty in price, Just to give you an idea of what my dreams are, even they don't specifically deal with the, although I will need 32' representations, so I have no doubt that I too will be using the design. Yes, I dream big
As for the wood, I can certainly go to the mill in Lyons and get some good quality wood for the project. Do you honestly think that I will get the effect I am after? I am afraid to ask, but I am doing my best to provide a "real experience" for anyone listening or even playing (including myself ). Thank you all for your help. StevenAttachments
Steven,
If I'm reading you correctly, you don't yet have a virtual sampling organ or any portion of a reproduction system for it adequate for the venues you would eventually like to use one in.
If that is true, contemplating the subwoofer section for it is premature- to get the sound of a pipe organ, the first step is having the instrument and the samples for it.
If you already have the rest of the system, a sub (or subs-multiple smaller subs would actually work better in the rooms you contemplate) that goes low, loud and clean will contribute to the effect you are after, that of the huge low ranks of a real pipe organ in a large space.
If not, I'd suggest not to worry about the bottom octaves until you have sorted out the other 90% of the system.
Nothing wrong with dreaming big, but first things first!
Cheers,
Art
If I'm reading you correctly, you don't yet have a virtual sampling organ or any portion of a reproduction system for it adequate for the venues you would eventually like to use one in.
If that is true, contemplating the subwoofer section for it is premature- to get the sound of a pipe organ, the first step is having the instrument and the samples for it.
If you already have the rest of the system, a sub (or subs-multiple smaller subs would actually work better in the rooms you contemplate) that goes low, loud and clean will contribute to the effect you are after, that of the huge low ranks of a real pipe organ in a large space.
If not, I'd suggest not to worry about the bottom octaves until you have sorted out the other 90% of the system.
Nothing wrong with dreaming big, but first things first!
Cheers,
Art
DTS10 and appropriate driver or specs
Art and Chris I understand you point, but you are making many assumptions that would take a HUGE post to explain. Art, You have said that the DTS10 will suit my purposes at 16 Hz with pipe organ SPL levels. The LAB 12 driver seems to have specs that are not as good as the original Eminence 122345. Is there any particular drivers that you might suggest or parameters that you would look for in a 2 driver box, like the DTS10? I appreciate your help, but please leave the aspects of the project to me, we are speaking of just the sup-woofer and enclosure that will do the job. Thank you, Steven
Art and Chris I understand you point, but you are making many assumptions that would take a HUGE post to explain. Art, You have said that the DTS10 will suit my purposes at 16 Hz with pipe organ SPL levels. The LAB 12 driver seems to have specs that are not as good as the original Eminence 122345. Is there any particular drivers that you might suggest or parameters that you would look for in a 2 driver box, like the DTS10? I appreciate your help, but please leave the aspects of the project to me, we are speaking of just the sup-woofer and enclosure that will do the job. Thank you, Steven
The specific parameters to look for were given in post #35, the LAB 12's Bl does not look adequate.
The new Stereo Integrity BM mkIV 12" TS parameters look like it would fill the bill at a reasonable price, though really strong magnetic force does not come cheap.
Best of luck with your project!
Art
Attachments
Art,
I am not sure if you or anyone else in this thread understand that I do truly appreciate the help and advise that I am being given. I know that this is your passion and that you have spent unbelievable amounts of time learning about all of the things involved in this area.
I am not in any way even an "apprentice" in this area of expertise and have only learned some things...that I never really knew existed...or at least thought about. I now know more than the "average person" about this topic, however my level of knowledge will never approach your expertise. That is why I have come to you and similar sources to try to get the answers I need to help me build what I am trying to build. Art, you asked a question (that I quoted here) that I cannot answer. I have never taken audio testing gear into a cathedral and measured a pipe organ, in any way. My knowledge is from personal experiences, listening to many organs of many different sizes, in many different venues. I can tell you what it sounds and feels like in each of those situations, but I couldn't even begin to tell you anything even near a measurement or anything quantitative.
My "expertise" is with actual pipe organs (and most other keyboard instruments, for that matter). I could build you a pipe organ, less actually making the metal pipes as that is so specialized and takes specialized equipment that I cannot do that art of it.
I used to be, what I called, a "pipe organ snob" and would have never even remotely considered an electronic equivalent as it literal replacement. I have reed organs and early analog electronic organs as well as pianos of many different types (grands, uprights, players, reproducers). They all have their place, especially if you look at things historically and how things evolved to where they are now.
Digital sampling of individual pipes of a pipe organ at several different points, the attack, the release, the related mechanical noise (in a tracker organ), processing all of this into a usable form and doing with thousands of pipes that have several recordings each that have to be processed to get a finished "product" that sounds convincing has only been possible for the past decade or so and truly possible in only the last 5 years (give or take). They are making improvements all of the time, as with all things.
You asked me about "my specific goal as "X" dB at 16 Hz. I have no way, that I know of, of being able to provide you that information. It might be something that a large pipe organ company could answer, but I personally do not have that kind of information. I can tell you that whether listening to a soft low "C" of a 32' rank being played under soft stops on the manuals, needs to be appropriately audible and balanced to the overall effect that is being created by that registration, just like low "C" of several 32' ranks (including reed pipes) needs to balance the manuals when being played at Full Organ. The interesting thing about a pipe organ is that, except for enclosed divisions, like the Swell Division, there is no volume control except for which stops you choose. Exposed pipes are going to sound exactly the same regardless of the entire registration. Everything is additive (or subtractive) in a pipe organ. In a large church/cathedral with a large pipe organ, you have hundreds of ranks of pipes to give you a great variety to choose from to create the overall sound/s you want, as the organist. I could go on and on and on on this subject, but for the most part, it will not really help or answer your question/s. You are used to dealing with numbers and simulations that give you a plethora of information which allows you to choose the right driver and enclosure for a given "job".
I know that my previous, "last post" turned all of you off. It was not meant to be rude, but things were getting off of the specific topic and I needed this single answer/solution to fill a very important gap in the audio section of the build/s, that I am working on. It seems that showing you my "dream virtual organs" created an issue. I am not exactly sure why, as I stated that they were my ultimate dreams and they may or may not happen. That doesn't stop me from dreaming and collecting parts of those projects over time. If I had the funds, I would buy an old very large church and have a pipe organ built for me to my specification. Do I have the millions to do that?...No...will I...extremely doubtful, unless I win the lottery (and a very large one).
I find it disturbing that because I shared with you my dream (which I am not really talking about in my original question), that it somehow gave you the idea that is what I was actively working on, as in building right now. My goals right now are much smaller and being new to the virtual organ world myself, I am experimenting with Hauptwerk and sample sets...and I have collected quite a few, as many are made available for free or as "sample" sets, so you get an abbreviated version of the entire organ that you can try at your virtual organ and see if you like it or not...enough to purchase the entire Sample Set.
With my current setup, I can do a pretty good job just playing things through my home theatre system and the transducers that I have attached to the floor. I get the overall effect, in a small environment and get a pretty good result, but I don't get the force that comes from a large pipe organ in a large space. It is something that has to be experienced to fully understand. I see YouTube videos of people have car systems that are unbelievable (an not in a good way). They have so much power and so many subwoofers that they would make it impossible to legally drive the vehicle with the system playing that loudly. I know there are contests that these people go to and compete in, but I have never liked being able to hear someone else's stereo in my car or even in my house when they are driving by. All that tells me is that they don't understand acoustics and sound waves and how long a single wave is at the low frequencies they are trying to achieve. They have their stereo turned up so loud, because that sound wave isn't even really audible unless you are 30 feet away from the vehicle (just an example).
I need a single design that I can replicate as needed for the systems that call for frequencies that low. I already have a couple of Sample Sets that include 32' stops, but I can't get the full experience that I have heard is possible from others that have built virtual pipe organ systems.
I don't know if any of this will be read of not. If read, I don't know if anyone will respond. As, I think you can tell, if asked about my passion, I could talk your ear off, but that is me and some of it might not even be understood, as I have talk with people that don't know a piano from an organ (of any type).
In any case, I wanted to explain why I couldn't answer some of the questions you have had, particularly using your question, Art, as an example. I also tried to explain more about what I am after and where my knowledge is and isn't.
I will wait to see what happens from here.
My best to you all,
Steven
Steven,
1) Others have, I have based my reccomendations on their measurements and my own experiences with pipe organs and a plethora of other low frequency instruments, both acoustic, synthetic, or sampled, all the way back from Kurzweil's first samplers back in 1984.
If 105 dB was good enough for Cameron Carpenter, I figured the DTS-10 should be plenty for you.
See post #245:
16Hz for church organ
That thread went on forever, three years ago..
2)My "expertise" is with speaker system design and sound reinforcement, real pipe organs being perhaps the only exception to any instrument I have heard that no-one has ever asked to reinforce.
3) Yup, computers and sampling have come a ways in the last 34 years.
4) A small environment is difficult to make sound like a large space. Even if you can get the SPL desired at your listening/playing position, the uneven LF response signature of a small room won't begin to match the LF reverberation of a large room. To properly emulate large room LF reverberation would require multiple subs and digital reverb with differing pre-delay for each.
5) Sound waves of any length can be heard regardless of distance from them, I have no problem hearing 10 Hz on Sony MD7506 headphones.
Outdoors, the loudest LF will be heard nearest the enclosure (or inside the car..). Indoors, cancellation due to room dimensions can result in certain frequencies being much louder at a distance from the sub.
Cheers,
Art
Attachments
Thank you Art!
Hello Art, I honestly didn't know if anyone would respond to my post as it seemed quite clear that I was "written off", even by your closing salutation of, "Best of luck with your project!".
I have lifelong chronic health issues, both physiological and psychological. Some of the psychological one's, in an almost antithetic way, help me with things, but it is a double-edged sword, as I can read between lines that are between lines...(a saying that I came up with decades ago to take the idea of "reading between the lines to a much deeper level).
With that said, let me respond to your post (and by the way, thank you for "bulleting" things, because it makes it easier for me to follow.
I am not stupid, actually I go in the other direction, however, it means that I process information differently and it is particularly apparent when dealing with a technical subject that I know little about. Sorry to go off topic by revealing a bit of personal information. I just wanted you to know that it helps me. Another thing that helps me is using the actual word/words instead of acronyms (that can be placed in parentheses after the words), because I am still very new to all of this terminology and if I don't know, or can't remember what an acronym means, then I have to stop and look it up, which messes me up and the flow of the information I am being given. I know that all of that is 2nd nature to you, who have learned and memorized that a very long time ago. Just as I can talk technical details about keyboard instruments, I end up loosing or at least boring people that don't know the topic. One of the problems about having detailed knowledge about a specialized topic.
I will use you bulleting technique to respond to you post. That will keep me more on track and easier (I hope) to follow.
1) I am extremely glad to hear that you are well versed this technology as it applies to pipe organs. You are correct, that sampling started much earlier, even to the point or instruments like the Melotone (not the John Compton invention used in cinema organs in the UK), that used actual taped recordings of sound, rhythms, etc. and played each tape that corresponded to each note, very interesting technology and application. I can't find the original post or even the YouTube videos that I watched don it.
Trying to describe something like this is not easy when you are crossing platforms. Having that experience is invaluable.
My guesstimate was 90 dB to 100 dB based on my little test system here. Because of the space/use/environment, I didn't want to use that as a figure, as I did know how closely it would approximate an actual large pipe organ in a proper space. Reverb is a given as there currently no space the even approaches something like a large stone church. Having multiples and delays, makes sense, although, like Owens organ, having 60 studio monitors (amongst the other drivers/enclosures that make up his entire system). Even though his listening room is not all that large being maybe 20' X 30' (could be smaller, like 15' X 15', it was metric and I can't exactly remember). I do know that my space here is larger than the one where he has all of his system.
2) Yes, I would think that would be rare.
3) I think things have almost exponentially increased in the past decade, if not 5 years as newer technology has made things more possible, easier and possible.
4) As you mentioned, small spaces are inherently more difficult to reproduce a convincing large pipe organ. Your eyes are telling you one thing and your ears are telling you another(simple version). I have heard a number of early demonstrations of this in people's living rooms and it is almost a shock to the system unless you close your eyes, and that isn't taking into account any of the actual physiological and acoustic aspects of it.
5) That is surprising to hear, as I have witnessed the "phenomena" myself by playing low frequencies that can be heard at "normal levels close up, but across the street, I am rattling dishes on the walls. I have also walked from a close position to a farther position while a low frequency was being played and as I got further away, the sound would rise and fall, based on the wave itself and the harmonics within the actual pipe sound. I have always heard that the lower the frequency/s, the longer the wave, therefore that farther you need to be to hear it properly.
6) (Not one of your original points, but I thought it was interesting as he is talking about sound systems for pipe organs). I wanted to include this link because, if you have not already seen it, I think you will find it interesting as this person does a lot of technical audio "experiments" that are actually interesting and informational, although his delivery is a bit different, but still quite understandable. I remember him doing a comparison/example of actual 64' and 128' stops. I have seen the joke videos on them, but he took a scientific approach to it and provided information that I though was actually valuable. YouTube
Thank you for your replay an continued support.
Best wishes,
Steven
Hello Art, I honestly didn't know if anyone would respond to my post as it seemed quite clear that I was "written off", even by your closing salutation of, "Best of luck with your project!".
I have lifelong chronic health issues, both physiological and psychological. Some of the psychological one's, in an almost antithetic way, help me with things, but it is a double-edged sword, as I can read between lines that are between lines...(a saying that I came up with decades ago to take the idea of "reading between the lines to a much deeper level).
With that said, let me respond to your post (and by the way, thank you for "bulleting" things, because it makes it easier for me to follow.
I am not stupid, actually I go in the other direction, however, it means that I process information differently and it is particularly apparent when dealing with a technical subject that I know little about. Sorry to go off topic by revealing a bit of personal information. I just wanted you to know that it helps me. Another thing that helps me is using the actual word/words instead of acronyms (that can be placed in parentheses after the words), because I am still very new to all of this terminology and if I don't know, or can't remember what an acronym means, then I have to stop and look it up, which messes me up and the flow of the information I am being given. I know that all of that is 2nd nature to you, who have learned and memorized that a very long time ago. Just as I can talk technical details about keyboard instruments, I end up loosing or at least boring people that don't know the topic. One of the problems about having detailed knowledge about a specialized topic.
I will use you bulleting technique to respond to you post. That will keep me more on track and easier (I hope) to follow.
1) I am extremely glad to hear that you are well versed this technology as it applies to pipe organs. You are correct, that sampling started much earlier, even to the point or instruments like the Melotone (not the John Compton invention used in cinema organs in the UK), that used actual taped recordings of sound, rhythms, etc. and played each tape that corresponded to each note, very interesting technology and application. I can't find the original post or even the YouTube videos that I watched don it.
Trying to describe something like this is not easy when you are crossing platforms. Having that experience is invaluable.
My guesstimate was 90 dB to 100 dB based on my little test system here. Because of the space/use/environment, I didn't want to use that as a figure, as I did know how closely it would approximate an actual large pipe organ in a proper space. Reverb is a given as there currently no space the even approaches something like a large stone church. Having multiples and delays, makes sense, although, like Owens organ, having 60 studio monitors (amongst the other drivers/enclosures that make up his entire system). Even though his listening room is not all that large being maybe 20' X 30' (could be smaller, like 15' X 15', it was metric and I can't exactly remember). I do know that my space here is larger than the one where he has all of his system.
2) Yes, I would think that would be rare.
3) I think things have almost exponentially increased in the past decade, if not 5 years as newer technology has made things more possible, easier and possible.
4) As you mentioned, small spaces are inherently more difficult to reproduce a convincing large pipe organ. Your eyes are telling you one thing and your ears are telling you another(simple version). I have heard a number of early demonstrations of this in people's living rooms and it is almost a shock to the system unless you close your eyes, and that isn't taking into account any of the actual physiological and acoustic aspects of it.
5) That is surprising to hear, as I have witnessed the "phenomena" myself by playing low frequencies that can be heard at "normal levels close up, but across the street, I am rattling dishes on the walls. I have also walked from a close position to a farther position while a low frequency was being played and as I got further away, the sound would rise and fall, based on the wave itself and the harmonics within the actual pipe sound. I have always heard that the lower the frequency/s, the longer the wave, therefore that farther you need to be to hear it properly.
6) (Not one of your original points, but I thought it was interesting as he is talking about sound systems for pipe organs). I wanted to include this link because, if you have not already seen it, I think you will find it interesting as this person does a lot of technical audio "experiments" that are actually interesting and informational, although his delivery is a bit different, but still quite understandable. I remember him doing a comparison/example of actual 64' and 128' stops. I have seen the joke videos on them, but he took a scientific approach to it and provided information that I though was actually valuable. YouTube
Thank you for your replay an continued support.
Best wishes,
Steven
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.