depending upon coupler angle, Karlson will be warmer than direct radiator due to some gain, etc. RCA-Fan's V-vent box has double or more the excursion of K15 and half its output from ~55-200. At high spl couplers will win I think over reflex on drums. Use low mass cones. a new 15" coupler with less back-tilt might be cool. Could a cut-down K like X15 size be good with tapped-horn type sub?
at ~1/10-1/8" p-p excursion I get pretty good drums. A B&C 15 in reflex is weak, flabby, "colored" and dynamically challenged.
at ~1/10-1/8" p-p excursion I get pretty good drums. A B&C 15 in reflex is weak, flabby, "colored" and dynamically challenged.
Greets!
Look at some of Freddy's measurements. If you don't think that resonant behavior higher up will bother you, then go for it. It may not bother me if I tried it today with my old man's hearing, but as a young teen it sounded horrible to me.
Dunno about the HPL, but the original 2035 was only good to 500 - 600 Hz to my ears, but I guess you could XO it at 1200 Hz with some EQ just like Altec did with the 416, which I don't like either, but I seem to be in the minority on this one.
Anyway, I understood the Q, but good luck getting it in 2.5 ft^3 with this driver since a transient perfect sealed cab will be at least 4.618 ft^3 net or a highly damped TL ~8.616 ft^3 net and this assumes zero output impedance, so driven with a SET these numbers will increase considerably. You'll probably have to OB them to get the transients 'tight'.
Getting them 'tight' and with 'impact' is two different things though and neither of these alignments will give you both without digital EQ, but the two I originally suggested I consider an acceptable compromise without resorting to a compression horn, but forget 2.5 ft^3 with or without factoring in a SET.
GM
Look at some of Freddy's measurements. If you don't think that resonant behavior higher up will bother you, then go for it. It may not bother me if I tried it today with my old man's hearing, but as a young teen it sounded horrible to me.
Dunno about the HPL, but the original 2035 was only good to 500 - 600 Hz to my ears, but I guess you could XO it at 1200 Hz with some EQ just like Altec did with the 416, which I don't like either, but I seem to be in the minority on this one.
Anyway, I understood the Q, but good luck getting it in 2.5 ft^3 with this driver since a transient perfect sealed cab will be at least 4.618 ft^3 net or a highly damped TL ~8.616 ft^3 net and this assumes zero output impedance, so driven with a SET these numbers will increase considerably. You'll probably have to OB them to get the transients 'tight'.
Getting them 'tight' and with 'impact' is two different things though and neither of these alignments will give you both without digital EQ, but the two I originally suggested I consider an acceptable compromise without resorting to a compression horn, but forget 2.5 ft^3 with or without factoring in a SET.
GM
Greets!
Well, in this case we are only interested above ~80 Hz, so don't think the 1/2 horn's extra excursion is an issue and it should have a better impulse response than the K. Any decent BP is going to 'blow the doors off' a BR over a narrow gain BW since both sides of the driver is acoustically damped.
?? What do you mean by 'cut down'? Until someone proves otherwise to me, I'm of the opinion that a TP needs to be XO'd fairly low, so the 'K' will need to get to 40-50 Hz for XOing purposes. I noticed TD has lowered the TOP's HF3, which implies that he agrees.
GM
Well, in this case we are only interested above ~80 Hz, so don't think the 1/2 horn's extra excursion is an issue and it should have a better impulse response than the K. Any decent BP is going to 'blow the doors off' a BR over a narrow gain BW since both sides of the driver is acoustically damped.
?? What do you mean by 'cut down'? Until someone proves otherwise to me, I'm of the opinion that a TP needs to be XO'd fairly low, so the 'K' will need to get to 40-50 Hz for XOing purposes. I noticed TD has lowered the TOP's HF3, which implies that he agrees.
GM
I certainly defend RCA-Fan's V-vent but also defend Karlson, I would sometimes like "leaner" balance K and have achieved it several times with other couplers or using K-tube on top.
The horrible sounding things in my book include high-mass woofer like B&C (whether shorting ring or not) in 2-way reflex and some folded horn :^)
I'm surprised that folks don't as fun or challenge try to build new couplers yet meander with pipehorn, OB, etc.
its not like I've not heard nor own other types----- even John Tucker likes K15 for something.
Freddy
ps
Posted by Steve Schell ( A ) on September 27, 2004 at 17:21:15
In Reply to: Karlson -- why? posted by serenechaos on September 27, 2004 at 15:42:59:
I sense a bit of serene skepticism in your question. No problem, Karlsons do look pretty goofy at first glance. There is something exceptional in their performance, however, that audio writers and hobbyists have been struggling to explain for 50 years now.
It took me many years to appreciate accuracy in bass reproduction, which is quite different from sheer level or extension. Karlsons are exceptionally clean sounding as well as very extended for their size. It takes a bass horn of considerably greater bulk to outperform them. They impose no limitations on bandwidth- Karlson Associates used to recommend their use with the coaxial and triaxial drivers of the day. I much prefer them loaded with field coil theatre woofers, and big ol' midrange horns and compression drivers sitting on top.
The horrible sounding things in my book include high-mass woofer like B&C (whether shorting ring or not) in 2-way reflex and some folded horn :^)
I'm surprised that folks don't as fun or challenge try to build new couplers yet meander with pipehorn, OB, etc.
its not like I've not heard nor own other types----- even John Tucker likes K15 for something.
Freddy
ps
Posted by Steve Schell ( A ) on September 27, 2004 at 17:21:15
In Reply to: Karlson -- why? posted by serenechaos on September 27, 2004 at 15:42:59:
I sense a bit of serene skepticism in your question. No problem, Karlsons do look pretty goofy at first glance. There is something exceptional in their performance, however, that audio writers and hobbyists have been struggling to explain for 50 years now.
It took me many years to appreciate accuracy in bass reproduction, which is quite different from sheer level or extension. Karlsons are exceptionally clean sounding as well as very extended for their size. It takes a bass horn of considerably greater bulk to outperform them. They impose no limitations on bandwidth- Karlson Associates used to recommend their use with the coaxial and triaxial drivers of the day. I much prefer them loaded with field coil theatre woofers, and big ol' midrange horns and compression drivers sitting on top.
Hi GM
I’d rather avoid resonant behavior, even if it’s higher up . .
> driven with a SET these numbers will increase considerably
You’re right, for tightness I should use the SET elsewhere
> the original 2035 was only good to 500 - 600 Hz to my ears
. . then I think I should count on using a mid, especially if I’m dropping the use of an SET here.
Earlier I’d thought of sealed (not room for OB on *this project), but no I’m thinking of vented - 2.5 ft^3 tuned to eg 40 Hz has an F3 of 69 Hz; then cross to a sub/ TH/ TL at about 70-80 Hz.
'Tight’ is probably a better word for my aim than 'impact'.
I understand that the transient response benefit of sealed, only applies around the tuning Hz, eg if a vented box is tuned to eg 40 Hz but crossed one octave higher at 80 Hz, the transient response diffrence will be minimal.
So maybe there isn’t a “variant” of vented that might do this better in this situation. Unless: I haven’t heard of 1/2 horn before, are they suitable for 80 – 350 Hz??
> You'll probably have to OB them to get the transients 'tight'.
Don’t want to do OB for *this, but for another driver/ situation - I’m very curious – I thought OB was something like a Q of 0.7?? are you suggesting that OB might do transients tighter then sealed?
Thanks
I’d rather avoid resonant behavior, even if it’s higher up . .
> driven with a SET these numbers will increase considerably
You’re right, for tightness I should use the SET elsewhere
> the original 2035 was only good to 500 - 600 Hz to my ears
. . then I think I should count on using a mid, especially if I’m dropping the use of an SET here.
Earlier I’d thought of sealed (not room for OB on *this project), but no I’m thinking of vented - 2.5 ft^3 tuned to eg 40 Hz has an F3 of 69 Hz; then cross to a sub/ TH/ TL at about 70-80 Hz.
'Tight’ is probably a better word for my aim than 'impact'.
I understand that the transient response benefit of sealed, only applies around the tuning Hz, eg if a vented box is tuned to eg 40 Hz but crossed one octave higher at 80 Hz, the transient response diffrence will be minimal.
So maybe there isn’t a “variant” of vented that might do this better in this situation. Unless: I haven’t heard of 1/2 horn before, are they suitable for 80 – 350 Hz??
> You'll probably have to OB them to get the transients 'tight'.
Don’t want to do OB for *this, but for another driver/ situation - I’m very curious – I thought OB was something like a Q of 0.7?? are you suggesting that OB might do transients tighter then sealed?
Thanks
Found the rudiments of Half Horns
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hug&n=95141&highlight=1/2+horn&r=&session=
They don’t seem at all smooth . .
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hug&n=112111&highlight=1/2+horn&r=&session=
Cheers
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hug&n=95141&highlight=1/2+horn&r=&session=
They don’t seem at all smooth . .
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hug&n=112111&highlight=1/2+horn&r=&session=
Cheers
that 70l chamber long-vent hithorn might be OK - doubt if would control cone excursion as well as Karlson - Bill said it should play good cello & bowed bass. Bill's V-vent is pretty good. (for kick-K I'd want ~20 degree baffle and EV15L-type)
here's what AJ-Horn predicts for a few drivers with 70 liter - if one went by bad graphs then a lot of FR BLH would be considered junk
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7739/hh5drivegh8.jpg
one more thing - how does one do half and BLH sims in Hornresp? I've only used it on front-load. I'd like to run comparisons. McBean's work seems more stable.
can a Karlson be extended pracically to 42Hz outdoors half-quareter power response? - or will it want to be closer to 50?
with B&C I may try aperiodic but don't expect it to sound good then going high - - high mass only helps to rolloff the mids and highs - hahaha
have fun !
here's what AJ-Horn predicts for a few drivers with 70 liter - if one went by bad graphs then a lot of FR BLH would be considered junk
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7739/hh5drivegh8.jpg
one more thing - how does one do half and BLH sims in Hornresp? I've only used it on front-load. I'd like to run comparisons. McBean's work seems more stable.
can a Karlson be extended pracically to 42Hz outdoors half-quareter power response? - or will it want to be closer to 50?
with B&C I may try aperiodic but don't expect it to sound good then going high - - high mass only helps to rolloff the mids and highs - hahaha
have fun !
Greets!
I'm not familiar with B&C other than what I read or what you consider 'high mass', but the Altec 515B is 'high mass' for a HE driver and everyone who has auditioned them AFAIK consider them the one of the finest 15", if not the finest sounding woofers ever built, so IMO 'high mass' in and of itself means nothing SQ wise beyond potentially lowering efficiency.
WRT to reflex alignments, their SQ is dependent on many variables and to be sure, few vintage and current ones are even remotely high SQ IMO, so again, using a 'broad stroke' to imply they all are too fundamentally flawed to perform well doesn't work for me.
I believe folks as a rule don't experiment with Ks for numerous, very good, reasons IMO:
They're too hard for the casual woodworker to make in their current form.
They can't be ~accurately simmed, ergo don't have a clue which drivers will perform well in them.
The few recommended drivers are relatively expensive, whether vintage or new, so even those with the disposable income are reluctant to gamble on an oddball with a virtually zero credibility among the audio 'cognoscenti'.
Even the few who don't discount them out-of-hand have strongly diverging opinions as to their performance limitations.
While rarely mentioned, another problem is its ultra wide dispersion when used in stereo apps, ergo the need for wide dispersion radial horns or K-couplers, which also suffers from most of the above reasons why they are experimented with.
I'm speculating now since my experience with the K is limited to mono, but in a typical room, I imagine they will interact so much that imaging/sound-staging, things that didn't use to be much of a consideration for sound reproduction enjoyment, will in theory be ~non-existent, like what you get with a B@#$ 901 set-up if used wide BW and one of the reasons why I recommend a low XO point.
WRT Tucker's use, as I previously noted, when used in its optimum BW, a K is going to be hard to beat, so using it to fill in below the A7's mid-horn roll off makes perfect sense to me.
As always though, YMMV.
GM
p.s. - if it's any consolation Freddy, one of my audio goals before we're both too old to care is to extensively experiment with them enough to hopefully get folks to play with them, like TC, Scott did with pipe horns (BIB).
I'm not familiar with B&C other than what I read or what you consider 'high mass', but the Altec 515B is 'high mass' for a HE driver and everyone who has auditioned them AFAIK consider them the one of the finest 15", if not the finest sounding woofers ever built, so IMO 'high mass' in and of itself means nothing SQ wise beyond potentially lowering efficiency.
WRT to reflex alignments, their SQ is dependent on many variables and to be sure, few vintage and current ones are even remotely high SQ IMO, so again, using a 'broad stroke' to imply they all are too fundamentally flawed to perform well doesn't work for me.
I believe folks as a rule don't experiment with Ks for numerous, very good, reasons IMO:
They're too hard for the casual woodworker to make in their current form.
They can't be ~accurately simmed, ergo don't have a clue which drivers will perform well in them.
The few recommended drivers are relatively expensive, whether vintage or new, so even those with the disposable income are reluctant to gamble on an oddball with a virtually zero credibility among the audio 'cognoscenti'.
Even the few who don't discount them out-of-hand have strongly diverging opinions as to their performance limitations.
While rarely mentioned, another problem is its ultra wide dispersion when used in stereo apps, ergo the need for wide dispersion radial horns or K-couplers, which also suffers from most of the above reasons why they are experimented with.
I'm speculating now since my experience with the K is limited to mono, but in a typical room, I imagine they will interact so much that imaging/sound-staging, things that didn't use to be much of a consideration for sound reproduction enjoyment, will in theory be ~non-existent, like what you get with a B@#$ 901 set-up if used wide BW and one of the reasons why I recommend a low XO point.
WRT Tucker's use, as I previously noted, when used in its optimum BW, a K is going to be hard to beat, so using it to fill in below the A7's mid-horn roll off makes perfect sense to me.
As always though, YMMV.
GM
p.s. - if it's any consolation Freddy, one of my audio goals before we're both too old to care is to extensively experiment with them enough to hopefully get folks to play with them, like TC, Scott did with pipe horns (BIB).
Hi!
I've been lurking here for a while,guess it's time to join in.
Last weekend I built a tapped horn to see how it would work. I used the LAB12 genII driver in a horn similar to William Cowan's 30 hz horn,but lenghtened to 90". Results are quite favorable for a first attempt.
Rather than repeat everything,here's the link to the plans and discussion at the Hi Eff forum of Audio Asylum.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hug/messages/121254.html
I've been lurking here for a while,guess it's time to join in.
Last weekend I built a tapped horn to see how it would work. I used the LAB12 genII driver in a horn similar to William Cowan's 30 hz horn,but lenghtened to 90". Results are quite favorable for a first attempt.
Rather than repeat everything,here's the link to the plans and discussion at the Hi Eff forum of Audio Asylum.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hug/messages/121254.html
rick57 said:
Greets!
If you use a digital XO, then how far above Fb you need to XO is slope order dependent.
Half horns or similar give you 'slam' at the expense of BW and while their impulse response are more resonant than a typical alignment, they're no worse than a typical horn's, which folks perceive as highly damped. If the driver is good to 350 Hz, then so is the half horn.
OB's roll off at 6 dB/octave, then at 18 dB/octave below Fs, so this will negate some/all of the SET's effect on increasing the driver's Qts, so yes, a driver's effective Qts can be lowered with an OB.
GM
Greets!
I don't see how a half/hit/whatever short horn is going to control as well as a BP. You're right, most BLHs are highly compromised designs.
It's been a long time since I dinked around with Hornresp, but in the HELP menu it tells you how to input a BLH, ergo any standard vented alignment can be done.
Getting a K to go lower and/or cover a wider BW is no different than any other BP, so the driver's specs will be key, and of course it will need to be bigger to go low.
One more time, 'high mass' doesn't by default mean rolled off mids, highs, it depends on the driver's construction and its inductance. That said, as a general rule, a manufacturer uses mass to help control a driver's break-up modes, so in this case it doesn't go as high, all else being equal. Bottom line, use the appropriate 'tool' (driver) for the job.
GM
I don't see how a half/hit/whatever short horn is going to control as well as a BP. You're right, most BLHs are highly compromised designs.
It's been a long time since I dinked around with Hornresp, but in the HELP menu it tells you how to input a BLH, ergo any standard vented alignment can be done.
Getting a K to go lower and/or cover a wider BW is no different than any other BP, so the driver's specs will be key, and of course it will need to be bigger to go low.
One more time, 'high mass' doesn't by default mean rolled off mids, highs, it depends on the driver's construction and its inductance. That said, as a general rule, a manufacturer uses mass to help control a driver's break-up modes, so in this case it doesn't go as high, all else being equal. Bottom line, use the appropriate 'tool' (driver) for the job.
GM
Hi GM
> WRT to reflex alignments, their SQ is dependent on many variables and to be sure, few vintage and current ones are even remotely high SQ IMO, so again, using a 'broad stroke' to imply they all are too fundamentally flawed to perform well doesn't work for me.
If you were responding to me, no I don’t think reflex alignments are fundamentally flawed, just wondered if their may be better way (“good> better > best”) to optimise for fast transients & fast decay, than the normal use of sims & tuning
I share your reservations about Ks, but was intrigued by your comment
> You'll probably have to OB them to get the transients 'tight'.
Anything you could add on OBs?
Thanks Again
> WRT to reflex alignments, their SQ is dependent on many variables and to be sure, few vintage and current ones are even remotely high SQ IMO, so again, using a 'broad stroke' to imply they all are too fundamentally flawed to perform well doesn't work for me.
If you were responding to me, no I don’t think reflex alignments are fundamentally flawed, just wondered if their may be better way (“good> better > best”) to optimise for fast transients & fast decay, than the normal use of sims & tuning
I share your reservations about Ks, but was intrigued by your comment
> You'll probably have to OB them to get the transients 'tight'.
Anything you could add on OBs?
Thanks Again
Hi GM
(For some reason your posts hadn't come though to here when I last posted). You have some interesting perspectives and good logic.
> If you use a digital XO, then how far above Fb you need to XO is slope order dependent.
Wouldn't that also apply to passive XOs?
> Half horns or similar give you 'slam' at the expense of BW . . and while their impulse response are more resonant than a typical alignment, they're no worse than a typical horn's
Do half horns have a similar drawback to Karlsons - they can't be ~accurately simmed; how close is it to a back loaded conical?
The Fmh of a JBL 2035 is 267 Hz. I also have some JBL 2202's, which were destined for midbass horns before available build time killed it.
With Qes of only 0.17 their Fmh is about double - 588 Hz, but with Vas of 128 litres/ 4 5 cubic feet, would they work ok in a half horn?
> and while their impulse response are more resonant than a typical alignment
You are saying for impulse response, that the 'pecking order' is sealed eg Q = 0.7, typical vented, then half horns; but that many people don't hear a (significant) difference?
>OB's roll off at 6 dB/octave, then at 18 dB/octave below Fs, so this will negate some/all of the SET's effect on increasing the driver's Qts, so yes, a driver's effective Qts can be lowered with an OB.
With sealed & vented, I thought the steeper the rolloff, the less ideal (rapid) the impulse response. Amp aside, are you suggesting that mounting a driver in an OB somehow lowers Qts, and improves impulse response?
Thanks Again
(For some reason your posts hadn't come though to here when I last posted). You have some interesting perspectives and good logic.
> If you use a digital XO, then how far above Fb you need to XO is slope order dependent.
Wouldn't that also apply to passive XOs?
> Half horns or similar give you 'slam' at the expense of BW . . and while their impulse response are more resonant than a typical alignment, they're no worse than a typical horn's
Do half horns have a similar drawback to Karlsons - they can't be ~accurately simmed; how close is it to a back loaded conical?
The Fmh of a JBL 2035 is 267 Hz. I also have some JBL 2202's, which were destined for midbass horns before available build time killed it.
With Qes of only 0.17 their Fmh is about double - 588 Hz, but with Vas of 128 litres/ 4 5 cubic feet, would they work ok in a half horn?
> and while their impulse response are more resonant than a typical alignment
You are saying for impulse response, that the 'pecking order' is sealed eg Q = 0.7, typical vented, then half horns; but that many people don't hear a (significant) difference?
>OB's roll off at 6 dB/octave, then at 18 dB/octave below Fs, so this will negate some/all of the SET's effect on increasing the driver's Qts, so yes, a driver's effective Qts can be lowered with an OB.
With sealed & vented, I thought the steeper the rolloff, the less ideal (rapid) the impulse response. Amp aside, are you suggesting that mounting a driver in an OB somehow lowers Qts, and improves impulse response?
Thanks Again
hey guys - regarding mass and what can afford - seems like going to 125-140g B&C costs about 5-6dB in the midrange plus add another 3 for K for total loss of around 3-8 depending upon POV. A leaner balance K might be good - if that's possible with same or more LF --- some of their tone seems to do with vent placement - I think - like central vent K15 style having a diferent sound than side-gapped.
a K going a couple notes lower than K15 might be fun as an experiment - which woofer type? - when I tried 295-070 EM-Dayton in somewhat lower tuned K15 - didn't seem optimal.
what does height of a K's front pipe have to do with its lumped front tuning? (assuming tuning can be lujmped below a point to figure out steady-state response) - CN is emphactic about raising coupler-height. If this has some bearing, how should the front chamber be set aspect-wise vs Sd for most efficient use of bulk and least amount of interference dips on the plot? (I almost concur withi CN that transients can sneak past dips)
B&C 15PZB even if went "aperiodic" might not sound tight since it sounds "thick" running 2-way in reflex or with reflex port stuffed. (might be my old haring -lol) IIRC 15TRX (with its shorting rings) might sound a "tiny" bit different than 15PZB (?) - they model ~same
what kind of OB setup might mate to TH sub nice for a dynamic but affordable system with good midrange? (got 12" coax and 21" woofer as toy)
JBL M151-8 vs B&C 15TRXB - theres a tiny bit of room for voicing by narrowing the gap to rear wall
btw--Don Bunce's T-H style sub looks good and driver available. How does that kluge in Hornresp?
a K going a couple notes lower than K15 might be fun as an experiment - which woofer type? - when I tried 295-070 EM-Dayton in somewhat lower tuned K15 - didn't seem optimal.
what does height of a K's front pipe have to do with its lumped front tuning? (assuming tuning can be lujmped below a point to figure out steady-state response) - CN is emphactic about raising coupler-height. If this has some bearing, how should the front chamber be set aspect-wise vs Sd for most efficient use of bulk and least amount of interference dips on the plot? (I almost concur withi CN that transients can sneak past dips)
B&C 15PZB even if went "aperiodic" might not sound tight since it sounds "thick" running 2-way in reflex or with reflex port stuffed. (might be my old haring -lol) IIRC 15TRX (with its shorting rings) might sound a "tiny" bit different than 15PZB (?) - they model ~same
what kind of OB setup might mate to TH sub nice for a dynamic but affordable system with good midrange? (got 12" coax and 21" woofer as toy)
JBL M151-8 vs B&C 15TRXB - theres a tiny bit of room for voicing by narrowing the gap to rear wall
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
btw--Don Bunce's T-H style sub looks good and driver available. How does that kluge in Hornresp?
I have not posted here but have been reading all the posts. I really like the size, ease, and claimed sound of this sub. it seems that this might fit into the normal basement rafter system. I don't have a basement in this house but the house we are moving to has one. I'll have to take the measurements for the rafters. The normal rafter is 16" on center so that means inside to inside is 14 1/4 " wide, then the rafters would have to be extended down to get the deeper dimentions. So that means the slat board would be horizontal. The mouth would face up into the room where the rest of the system resides. Does this sound like I am babbling? Cheers.
Freddy,
I see you pulled your posts from the hi eff forum...sorry for the delay,had
to work today.
The TH doesn't put out the shock wave that the LAB does,but it fills the room with bass....weird...
Playing Bela Fleck's Flight of the Cosmic Hippo at 120 db peaks on the Radio Shack meter at the mouth,excursion is very low...maybe a mm or two.(I should have worn ear plugs...feels like I'm under water right now)I thought it would be a lot higher than that.
Freq measurements are all over the place depending on mic placement,will have to take it outside to measure.has a big peak at 200 hz in my room.
DJN,
I made the internal width 14",the driver is 12.25" dia,so you could make the width 12.5",so the external width would be 14",should slip right in between the floor joists.
You could mount it vertically,with just the top 12" sticking out...would freak people out to see such a small box put out so much sound! you don't have to tell them the rest of it is basement.!hehehe...
I'm planning to build another one soon (hooked on stereo bass),will make it 14" outside dim to see how it works,would be much more convenient for mounting in floors,walls,or ceilings.Will let you know how it works out.
I see you pulled your posts from the hi eff forum...sorry for the delay,had
to work today.
The TH doesn't put out the shock wave that the LAB does,but it fills the room with bass....weird...
Playing Bela Fleck's Flight of the Cosmic Hippo at 120 db peaks on the Radio Shack meter at the mouth,excursion is very low...maybe a mm or two.(I should have worn ear plugs...feels like I'm under water right now)I thought it would be a lot higher than that.
Freq measurements are all over the place depending on mic placement,will have to take it outside to measure.has a big peak at 200 hz in my room.
DJN,
I made the internal width 14",the driver is 12.25" dia,so you could make the width 12.5",so the external width would be 14",should slip right in between the floor joists.
You could mount it vertically,with just the top 12" sticking out...would freak people out to see such a small box put out so much sound! you don't have to tell them the rest of it is basement.!hehehe...
I'm planning to build another one soon (hooked on stereo bass),will make it 14" outside dim to see how it works,would be much more convenient for mounting in floors,walls,or ceilings.Will let you know how it works out.