From the Tangen article
"My quest for the Almighty Subwoofers really started when I as a teenager heard a rock band play. The band had a huge bass guitar amplifier, and the clean punch from this, far from anything I'd ever heard, made a deep impression on this author. "
Same for me. Bands would come somedays and play at our high school. The strong base went right through my gut and did something to me permanently.
Now I'm interested in even lower frequencies.
"My quest for the Almighty Subwoofers really started when I as a teenager heard a rock band play. The band had a huge bass guitar amplifier, and the clean punch from this, far from anything I'd ever heard, made a deep impression on this author. "
Same for me. Bands would come somedays and play at our high school. The strong base went right through my gut and did something to me permanently.
Now I'm interested in even lower frequencies.
Thing is, you let most "audiophiles" at the EQ for a live band, and it's gonna sound flat... For rock, my 0.9Q sealed subs are a LOT better than my 0.7Q subs... But the sevens are a LOT better with "nice" music.
In my basement, "The Bunker," I've got a pair of 15s tuned to 21hz, and the 0.9s sitting under the mains. I can't hear it down under 20s, but I can feel it.
In my basement, "The Bunker," I've got a pair of 15s tuned to 21hz, and the 0.9s sitting under the mains. I can't hear it down under 20s, but I can feel it.
In my old sonotubes, I was running the things at 18hz ported... Fs on the drivers is 21hz... System was also running through a Behringer feedback destroyer for equalization... Basically I cut high...
They would move a lot of air pretty low, but I also had a highpass, so I had to throw a lot of signal at it for the low stuff... I'm semi-seriously thinking about getting a few lengths of large PVC for when I rehab that end of the room, and building in a large transmisson line...
When does a ported system become a transmission line?
I'm not going to lose the "thump" speaks tho... I do too many concert DVDs, and I like that 60-100hz bump to be there with 'em...
They would move a lot of air pretty low, but I also had a highpass, so I had to throw a lot of signal at it for the low stuff... I'm semi-seriously thinking about getting a few lengths of large PVC for when I rehab that end of the room, and building in a large transmisson line...
When does a ported system become a transmission line?
I'm not going to lose the "thump" speaks tho... I do too many concert DVDs, and I like that 60-100hz bump to be there with 'em...
zenmasterbrian said:
Please stop wasting our time.
You have alot of threads going on this forum, but expect us to do all the work for you.
If you google "IB Cult Avalanche" , you will find the answers to your question above.
If you google "SVS speakers" (your question from another of your threads), you will also easily find that answer...
Tuning that low below Fs is asking for distortion,perhaps becaus ethe unit is relatively clean it isnt objectionable.AndrewT said:
Note that there is no real advantage over using a low Fs driver apart from the fact that the jbl has flux shorting rings and high RMS rating.
I used a 2226 in 175L internal tuned to 33hz for several years.Loved it!
You could use two low fs HT type woofers push pull and achieve some nice lows without an expensive 2226.
Hi Mike,
The Fs determines the final cabinet low frequency roll off point.
Using an Fs=25Hz driver in a box that performs well down to say 20Hz and then comparing another speaker using an Fs=100Hz driver in a box tuned to give bass response down to a similar low frequency will be severely compromised.
Or, am I wrong?
surely this is an oversimplification that has become misleading?
The Fs determines the final cabinet low frequency roll off point.
Using an Fs=25Hz driver in a box that performs well down to say 20Hz and then comparing another speaker using an Fs=100Hz driver in a box tuned to give bass response down to a similar low frequency will be severely compromised.
Or, am I wrong?
IMHO, the real limiting factor is displacement, and how well it can be controlled. If all you have to do is control a little for each driver, a multiple driver setup can give you better results below its limits than a single big floppy driver...
I can localize relatively low frequencies... I'd rather listen to several subs spread across front of room than to a single higher xmax one sitting in a corner.
I can localize relatively low frequencies... I'd rather listen to several subs spread across front of room than to a single higher xmax one sitting in a corner.
Hi,
I think we are all agreed that high Xmax as a substitute for Sd compromises the bass quality.
Look at all the small bass/mids with high Xmax relative to their diameter for proof of compromise.
Whether, bass sound quality is different, using multiple low Xmax smaller drivers compared to using a low Xmax large driver is debatable.
But if the bass drivers are being asked to extend up into the mid range then the driver designer will have an easier job extracting exemplary performance from multiple small drivers than from a big floppy coned single driver. I think we could be persuaded to agree this point.
If the cone is not floppy in it's exemplarly part of the passband then we are back to the debatable. Look at the proliferation of concentrically ribbed dual layer bass cones for proof of non floppy construction.
I think we are all agreed that high Xmax as a substitute for Sd compromises the bass quality.
Look at all the small bass/mids with high Xmax relative to their diameter for proof of compromise.
Whether, bass sound quality is different, using multiple low Xmax smaller drivers compared to using a low Xmax large driver is debatable.
But if the bass drivers are being asked to extend up into the mid range then the driver designer will have an easier job extracting exemplary performance from multiple small drivers than from a big floppy coned single driver. I think we could be persuaded to agree this point.
If the cone is not floppy in it's exemplarly part of the passband then we are back to the debatable. Look at the proliferation of concentrically ribbed dual layer bass cones for proof of non floppy construction.
Linkwitz Transform: does it sound nasty?
I read Rod Elliott's article and on the face of it it's a way of getting deep bass out of a small sealed box.
But would it cause distortion due to compression (the voice coil is going to get hot)?
I have a pair of Tannoy Ardens (15 inch DCs in 200 litre reflexes) that are, sadly, too big for my room and am thinking of making smaller sealed boxes for them. Can I expect to regain that huge clean bass by means of EQ? I realise that headroom will be limited but I don't listen loud anyway. I have neighbours, you see.
Apologies if this is OT, I just saw the Linkwitz reference.
I read Rod Elliott's article and on the face of it it's a way of getting deep bass out of a small sealed box.
But would it cause distortion due to compression (the voice coil is going to get hot)?
I have a pair of Tannoy Ardens (15 inch DCs in 200 litre reflexes) that are, sadly, too big for my room and am thinking of making smaller sealed boxes for them. Can I expect to regain that huge clean bass by means of EQ? I realise that headroom will be limited but I don't listen loud anyway. I have neighbours, you see.
Apologies if this is OT, I just saw the Linkwitz reference.
If you look at amplitude statistics then most of them will show a significant drop in level below 60 Hz.
My conclusion is then that you can safely use LTF or similar eq-ing to extend frequency response - if your driver is going at least down to 60 Hz already without use of EQ.
If your box doesn't go that low by itself you run the risk of needing EQ where there is already high power demand by nature.
I once used an LTF to tune down a Dynaudio 20W75 in a closed box (prototype active speaker with an MSW). Without EQ it was going down to approx 60 Hz - with LTF it was going down to 30 Hz with a system Q of 0.5. Gues which one sounded better ? I used a chip amp with 2x10 Watts per speaker and it was sufficient for most records. But you'd also have to be aware that I listened in the nearfield.
Regards
Charles
My conclusion is then that you can safely use LTF or similar eq-ing to extend frequency response - if your driver is going at least down to 60 Hz already without use of EQ.
If your box doesn't go that low by itself you run the risk of needing EQ where there is already high power demand by nature.
I once used an LTF to tune down a Dynaudio 20W75 in a closed box (prototype active speaker with an MSW). Without EQ it was going down to approx 60 Hz - with LTF it was going down to 30 Hz with a system Q of 0.5. Gues which one sounded better ? I used a chip amp with 2x10 Watts per speaker and it was sufficient for most records. But you'd also have to be aware that I listened in the nearfield.
Regards
Charles
Hi,
I cannot guess, tell me.
I suspect that EQing to raise the low bass response will introduce a number of sound quality compromises.
That is, in addition to the extra power/ extra Xmax / limited SPL that results from electronic bass extension.
Bremen,
I think you will be dissappointed.
How about a project to change the SHAPE of the Arden cabinet to one that is more domestically acceptable.
I am thinking tall (1000mm to 1200mm) narrow (400mm to 450mm) and deep (600mm to 700mm). Allow about 25mm thickness and you get your 200L.
I cannot guess, tell me.
I suspect that EQing to raise the low bass response will introduce a number of sound quality compromises.
That is, in addition to the extra power/ extra Xmax / limited SPL that results from electronic bass extension.
Bremen,
I think you will be dissappointed.
How about a project to change the SHAPE of the Arden cabinet to one that is more domestically acceptable.
I am thinking tall (1000mm to 1200mm) narrow (400mm to 450mm) and deep (600mm to 700mm). Allow about 25mm thickness and you get your 200L.
AndrewT said:
I vote the opposite choice
With the nicer phase and amplitude characteristics of the gentle roll-off and moving the phase change further down the band where there is much less information, I suspect the EQ'd system sounded cleaner and more natural in Charles' situation where blasting SPLs were not required.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.