No, drivers for a pair and dsp makes 1500$ which is 990£ (GBP)
With this combo You can get close to what you are asking for in performance (wide range, low distortion, good CSD, and spl used in studios). Good coaxial drivers are not cheap and going active with dsp and many amplifier(channels) is not cheap either.
Like someone else said, doesn't make any sense to buy crap drivers and make cheap & lousy small speakers yourself. The performance of KINGRO4Y kind of speaker equals the passive TAD Compact reference that costs 37 000$ for a pair. And then you would need an amplifier too.
I am done with this thread now.
With this combo You can get close to what you are asking for in performance (wide range, low distortion, good CSD, and spl used in studios). Good coaxial drivers are not cheap and going active with dsp and many amplifier(channels) is not cheap either.
Like someone else said, doesn't make any sense to buy crap drivers and make cheap & lousy small speakers yourself. The performance of KINGRO4Y kind of speaker equals the passive TAD Compact reference that costs 37 000$ for a pair. And then you would need an amplifier too.
I am done with this thread now.
Sure I understand that - they look like in incredible value the more I think about it. However - I have just bought a pair of speakers for £1350 only to find out that they have 100 quids what you would no doubt describe as "crap" drivers in them ! These speakers are used in studios all over the world including abbey rd ! If only Id come here first - kind of feel like Ive been mugged to be honest ): I am therefore being very careful of everything I read online now and researching my options thoroughly - please don't interpret this as me dismissing the very useful information you have given me. So even if I don't get the kingroys just yet or meet my target - I should at least be able to improve on the performance I have now via the DIY route. The Kingroys do indeed look like an impressive speaker and I can see I would be getting an excellent system for a fraction of the price if I bought it from a "brand" . So far I think its a very good option . I would like to hear of any other kits that are available though,if any, which will give me 25hz - 20000z whether they be cheap or not ! Perhaps coaxial is not the best route to achieve this within a budget - do the performance advantages of a coaxial driver outweigh the added cost ? Also out of the two amps mentioned one was described as professional one as amateur - could you explain to me the advantages of the professional one - thanks again for taking the time to point out these speakers - I suspect I will probably end up building them 😉
Last edited:
It is over your budget, will not play 25Hz, the coaxial is expensive but without the performance to match, compromises made to be small which is not important to you, etc... Nothing is perfect but a large cabinet with a 12"-15" woofer will get you 25Hz and a conventional midrange plus tweeter with waveguide will be significantly cheaper and likely superior in several respects.
If you look at the raw data for the driver here you can see quite severe issues at higher frequencies (e.g. an on axis drop of 15dB from 5kHz-7.5kHz). In the overly smoothed measurements of the complete speaker here the on axis has been equalised flat but the effects of diffraction from those circular edges is stronger on axis compared to off and so it doesn't work that well. The KEF driver uses a phase plug (which KEF calls a waveguide) to better control the high frequency misbehaviour. It is still present but to a significantly lesser extent. The coaxial that probably best controls this aspect is the Genelec here but I know little about the details.
The other problem with coaxials is the movement of the midrange cone interfering with the tweeter output. This causes intermodulation distortion but Andrew Jones (I think) commented somewhere on this site (which I cannot find - anyone?) that the deflection of the cone changing the radiation pattern is the greater problem. You can get a hint of that here in the shape of the harmonic distortion plots for the KEF blade. The midrange motor distortion is likely fairly flat over that region but the small amount of tweeter output plus the relatively small midrange deflection (falls with frequency over its passband) would seem to be sufficient to generate registerable amounts of harmonic distortion. Since it is harmonic distortion rather than intermodulation distortion the mechanism would appear to be something like the midrange cone making the tweeter louder over the outward half cycle and quieter over the inward half. Turning the tweeter off should drop the distortion to fairly flat while playing two tones with one low in the midrange passband (high deflection) and one in the tweeter passband should produce high levels of distortion. Is anyone aware of such a plot for a coaxial on the web? How high/audible is it at standard levels in a room?
Thanks again Andy - great info. Could you recommend a kit that will give me 25 hz - 22 kHz that does not use coaxial drivers ? I realise I may have to go over budget - Do you think that 6 channel amp with built in crossover (the Minidsp 4x10HD) for 500 dollars is good value (it seems so to me but I am but Im new to this speaker building malarkey) - would you say it would be worth building a system round it with no coaxial drivers ? I just want the best sound I can get for the most reasonable price - I am not attached to any of my design ideas if they are erroneous. Alternative kits ?
Last edited:
Augutine,
Your information is a bit fragmented. Would you care to restate your equipment, goals & limits?
What does this mean:
"I have access to a 3d router - so I could 3d print almost any shape"
-Is 'print' a typo here (did you mean 'cut'), or do you have access to both a computer-controlled router, and a 3d printer?
What does this mean:
"I would like to carve my own wooden cases for them out of tree trunks"
-this sounds like a noble goal, but insane. Are you talking about milling beams, and working with these? Or are you thinking about using a single large log per speaker, and reaming the centre out, like coring an apple?*
Also, how long will you be in the current studio space? Can you modify it? For example, would it be possible to build a 2-way (coaxial or otherwise) + infinite baffle subs, and then build more subs when you move? I ask this because cutting a hole in the wall is a very cheap way to 'build' a bass system.
Does 'active' mean the whole system? Would you be happy with (for example) an active crossover at 200Hz, and a passive crossover at 6kHz? This would let you use a simpler / cheaper DSP and one less amplifier.
Exactly what gear do you have access to already?
-you have plenty measuring gear (mics, REW etc)
-you have decent monitors already
...do you already have amps, cables etc?
...do you have any industry perks, like access to bargains / used gear?
...do you have a way to check the Thiele-Small values of any speaker you acquire?
...do you have tools (including whatever hardcore equipment you'd need to carve entire tree trunks)?
...do you have the tree trunks already? If yes, is it aged, fully dried timber?
...can you build / modify electronic equipment?
What are your limitations?
-budget is 1000 pounds (for what exactly - just the speakers, or everything, including tools?)
-what's the maximum size / weight?
I disagree with a comment from earlier in this thread:
"Solid wood will crack if it used as the load carrying structure"
-try doing an image search on, for example, 'trebuchet' or 'HMAS Endeavour', and think about the stresses that timber has been shown to withstand in these applications.
I've addressed timber use for speaker boxes here: all timber speaker cabinets - hollowboy - High Efficiency Speaker Asylum
Based on my experience (and I'm not a skilled carpenter), if you can access good timber, if your build is solid, if no span is enormous, and you oil the timber, there should be no problems. I'm currently building some ~200litre hardwood cabinets, which I would not be doing if I'd had trouble with my other timber builds.
*The former is possible, if you have tools, expertise and are willing to wait several years for the timber to fully dry. The latter would be too difficult.
It would be semi-feasible, but an incredible amount of work, to carve two sections per speaker (like a pair of dugout canoes) and affix them. It would have many ways to go badly wrong. It is possible to build something like this that lasts - the canoe Ngā Toki Matawhaorua is still seaworthy after 75 years - but it was made by people who knew what they were doing, not noobs on their first try.
I'd say a much better idea would be to use relatively conventional construction, and make any large curves from many smaller pieces, the way a barrel is made of many individual staves.
Your information is a bit fragmented. Would you care to restate your equipment, goals & limits?
What does this mean:
"I have access to a 3d router - so I could 3d print almost any shape"
-Is 'print' a typo here (did you mean 'cut'), or do you have access to both a computer-controlled router, and a 3d printer?
What does this mean:
"I would like to carve my own wooden cases for them out of tree trunks"
-this sounds like a noble goal, but insane. Are you talking about milling beams, and working with these? Or are you thinking about using a single large log per speaker, and reaming the centre out, like coring an apple?*
Also, how long will you be in the current studio space? Can you modify it? For example, would it be possible to build a 2-way (coaxial or otherwise) + infinite baffle subs, and then build more subs when you move? I ask this because cutting a hole in the wall is a very cheap way to 'build' a bass system.
Does 'active' mean the whole system? Would you be happy with (for example) an active crossover at 200Hz, and a passive crossover at 6kHz? This would let you use a simpler / cheaper DSP and one less amplifier.
Exactly what gear do you have access to already?
-you have plenty measuring gear (mics, REW etc)
-you have decent monitors already
...do you already have amps, cables etc?
...do you have any industry perks, like access to bargains / used gear?
...do you have a way to check the Thiele-Small values of any speaker you acquire?
...do you have tools (including whatever hardcore equipment you'd need to carve entire tree trunks)?
...do you have the tree trunks already? If yes, is it aged, fully dried timber?
...can you build / modify electronic equipment?
What are your limitations?
-budget is 1000 pounds (for what exactly - just the speakers, or everything, including tools?)
-what's the maximum size / weight?
I disagree with a comment from earlier in this thread:
"Solid wood will crack if it used as the load carrying structure"
-try doing an image search on, for example, 'trebuchet' or 'HMAS Endeavour', and think about the stresses that timber has been shown to withstand in these applications.
I've addressed timber use for speaker boxes here: all timber speaker cabinets - hollowboy - High Efficiency Speaker Asylum
Based on my experience (and I'm not a skilled carpenter), if you can access good timber, if your build is solid, if no span is enormous, and you oil the timber, there should be no problems. I'm currently building some ~200litre hardwood cabinets, which I would not be doing if I'd had trouble with my other timber builds.
*The former is possible, if you have tools, expertise and are willing to wait several years for the timber to fully dry. The latter would be too difficult.
It would be semi-feasible, but an incredible amount of work, to carve two sections per speaker (like a pair of dugout canoes) and affix them. It would have many ways to go badly wrong. It is possible to build something like this that lasts - the canoe Ngā Toki Matawhaorua is still seaworthy after 75 years - but it was made by people who knew what they were doing, not noobs on their first try.
I'd say a much better idea would be to use relatively conventional construction, and make any large curves from many smaller pieces, the way a barrel is made of many individual staves.
My goals are : 25 hz - 20 khz = +/- 3db , low harmonic distortion, excellent uniform time based response especially decay times in lower frequencies , 3 way, preferably digital crossovers (but not essential if not necessary) - this amp has been suggested - mindsp 4 * 10hd
No a typo - its common in the 3d printing world to refer to creating a 3d object with a 3d router or 3d printer as "printing" - I have access to both free thanks to the European funded Fablab program.
The latter coring an apple - however I have been advised that such wood would be resonant and crack - so have dropped the idea - in fact much of my original post seems to have evolved into - just get a kit ! I like the idea of tree trunk speakers - but basically sound is the important thing in my line of work ..... maybe one day 😉
Not an option unfortunately - rented space.
I am open to the wisdom of people with more experience here - I am not attached to erroneous tech if its not necessary - like I say my main design goals 25 hz - 20 khz = +/- 3db , low harmonic distortion, excellent uniform time based response especially decay times in lower frequencies - however I can achieve them most economically is my main concern. I am not attached to any of my design ideas (i.e. coaxial drivers, tree trunks active crossovers etc). I would like a 3 way though . However in view of the amp mentioned - at 500 dollars - maybe it is not so hard to get digital crossovers for all drivers.
I have access to a lot of gear to long to go into - but yes I have reasonable monitors not so great on the bottom end though (the transfer function of my room, monitors and converters etc is +/- 5 db but only down to 60 hz - I have a sub but sits a bit flabby on the decay times - room is well treated) . I use REW regularly and have access to a calibrated measurement mic.
...do you already have amps, cables etc?
yes - but I have my eye on the previously mentioned amp - at the moment I am powering all drivers in the PMC with one stereo amp.
...do you have any industry perks, like access to bargains / used gear?
Sometimes
...do you have a way to check the Thiele-Small values of any speaker you acquire?
I believe REW has this function
...do you have tools (including whatever hardcore equipment you'd need to carve entire tree trunks)?
I do I work with wood often
...do you have the tree trunks already? If yes, is it aged, fully dried timber?
No but I can get them and know whats involved
...can you build / modify electronic equipment?
To a certain degree - but I have mates that can help - like I say I am now thinking of a kit - know any good ones ?
What are your limitations?
-
budget would be that including amps - tools I have, time I have - I could go a little over if it would mean a massive jump in performance.
-what's the maximum size / weight?
There is none
I disagree with a comment from earlier in this thread:
tx
Interesting - I have access to dry timber - yes excellent - my tree trunk dream is rekindled 😉
This is in fact what I did recently to create an enormous bowl - we 3d printed ( 😀 ) it in layers in the router - it worked well - but if I was going to go the tree root (pun not intended that was a typo) I would use real trees - hollow out the space equally in both. As you say it may be insane at the moment - but just think how cool it would be. In the meantime if you could suggest a kit or something that would get me on spec Id be grateful !
Last edited:
What you have named seems to be a very expensive active crossover without any amplifiers. Did you mean something else? You can probably create the 6 channels of filtered audio for the drivers using your current sound software and so spending half your budget on something that you do not strictly need does not look wise to me.
If you are going for one amplifier per driver with programmable DSP to do the filtering then you do not particularly need a kit although you will need to look at a few speaker designs to get a feel for what is what.
If you want to reach 25Hz with the mains rather than a more usual 35Hz (good quality deep bass in a room is best provided by distributed subwoofers) and large cabinets are acceptable then that means something like a 12" woofer with a port. Perhaps a 15", perhaps 2 x 8" but around this size. The woofer cabinet wants to be stiff to push the lowest resonances above the passband and you will have little chance of doing that with a solid wood construction that allows for movement and a rigid solid wood construction that does achieve it will crack when the wood moves.
The midrange and tweeter in a separate cabinet should be passively isolated from the woofer cabinet with some soft rubber. This cabinet does not need to be stiff but instead needs to have high damping to reduce the resonances. It could be made out of pieces of solid wood to allow for movement but they would need to be bonded to a damping material to get good performance.
If you cannot flush mount then the cabinets should be smooth and rounded to minimise diffracting the sound and creating early reflections. A waveguide on the tweeter will help this as well as the directivity. Round waveguides tend to suffer from on axis diffraction and have the same directivity vertically and horizontally which is usually less than ideal for a room. The additional complexity of an oval waveguide is likely to be worth picking up. People have turned round waveguides out of solid wood for a long time and some did not fail with cracking. It could be worth a google to find what worked and what did not.
Concerning amplifiers the woofers are likely to need a fair bit of power but cheaper class D modules are usually fine at low frequencies. The midrange and tweeter will need less power but class D amplifiers are not always audibly neutral at high frequencies. Class AB modules may be a safer choice. A high power 6 channel amplifier will be unnecessary for 4 of the channels and so a combination of 2 and/or 4 channel amplifiers may be worth considering.
PS I linked to the wrong SEAS coaxial in my previous post. The coaxial used in the kit is no longer listed as a standard driver by SEAS which is presumably why the kit is no longer listed. This is perhaps another reason to look elsewhere whether for a coaxial or separate tweeter and midrange.
Last edited:
This is nearly all down to the room and not the speakers. At low frequencies the speakers are essentially a sound source at a position in the room. Pretty much all that matters is how much air they displace and that they do not create too much distortion (the ear is not particularly sensitive at low frequencies). The position in the room is important because of how efficiently the room modes will or will not be driven and hence how well the low frequency equalisation will work.
Hi
Don't build a cabinet out of a whole piece of wood. It will shrink and crack, and will not be air tight for long.
I have come across only a few coaxial three-way drivers, but can only remember this one. It is still available if you look around internationally. Hi Vi Trinity 6.
ATC Sound - 3 utas hangszóró
https://vikiwat.com/govoritel-shirokolentov-vk-0829-12-4ohm-20w.html
I am doing a three-way active. The miniDSP miniSHARK combined with DAC8 is probably the most economical way, and you can add a volume control to make it a digital preamp with DSP. For amps, just choose what you can afford and perhaps upgrade later. Cheapest recommended at TPA3116, or you could do Hypex UCD180 modules if more cash was available.
This is a fast moving thread. It is amazing what interest a novel concept creates.
If you don't fancy the Hi Vi Trinity 6, consider buying a pair of KEF R100 off ebay and harvesting the drivers. You could add bass drivers above and below, and continue with the active approach, having ditched the KEF crossover. Should be nice.
Don't build a cabinet out of a whole piece of wood. It will shrink and crack, and will not be air tight for long.
I have come across only a few coaxial three-way drivers, but can only remember this one. It is still available if you look around internationally. Hi Vi Trinity 6.
ATC Sound - 3 utas hangszóró
https://vikiwat.com/govoritel-shirokolentov-vk-0829-12-4ohm-20w.html
I am doing a three-way active. The miniDSP miniSHARK combined with DAC8 is probably the most economical way, and you can add a volume control to make it a digital preamp with DSP. For amps, just choose what you can afford and perhaps upgrade later. Cheapest recommended at TPA3116, or you could do Hypex UCD180 modules if more cash was available.
This is a fast moving thread. It is amazing what interest a novel concept creates.
If you don't fancy the Hi Vi Trinity 6, consider buying a pair of KEF R100 off ebay and harvesting the drivers. You could add bass drivers above and below, and continue with the active approach, having ditched the KEF crossover. Should be nice.
I beg to differ - this is why time responses in speakers are taken in anechoic chambers . Here is resolution magazine :
Resolution
They give excellent time/frequency based measurements for speakers in anechoic chambers - its to do with how long the driver keeps resonating a given frequency after the input has stopped - in fact some manufacturers make a big fuss about there speakers time based response. Have a look at some of the resolution measurments - you will see there is a big difference amongst speakers and explains how decay times between different speakers at low frequencies can be radically different in the same position in the same room. Unless of course my sound engineering tutors and resolution magazine have been trolling me all this time. Of course the room and standing waves etc are also important. Bass traps etc - I work with room acoustics so I am well aware of what needs to be done with rooms, speaker positioning, listening position, bass traps, reflection points etc etc ! Time based response in speakers is considered by some to be more important than frequency response - and is oft neglected. In th epro audio world it translated roughly into what people call a good transient response or occasionally "tight fast bass" and such nonsense.
Last edited:
Augustine,
Another reminder that your "goals" still mean nothing without a stated SPL level at a given distance.
You also have given no preference for dispersion.
Art
I dont really mind how loud it goes to be honest - accuracy is more important to me than being super loud - if quieter drivers are cheaper I am happy to go down that route - as long as 25hz - 20khz etc etc. I am not sure about dispersion. In the sound engineering forums some say wide dispersion is good because if off axis response is good moving your listening position etc wont affect frequency response to badly - others say its bad for monitors because of room reflection etc. For my part - I am undecided - I do have a well treated room - I would be inclined to have an off axis response which remained as stable as possible with wider sweet spot - however in regard to budget this is not the most important thing.
Last edited:
The time response is the inverse Fourier transform of the frequency response (amplitude and phase) for a linear system. Do you mean something by time response that is not in the frequency response?
At what frequency does the anechoic chamber used for those low frequency time responses stop being anechoic?
How long does a speaker take to stop at low frequencies compared to the length of time the sound takes to stop in your room? If you increase the settling time of the speaker by using, say, a port will it make any difference?
Why do you think the expensive subwoofers from the more serious pro-audio companies like Genelec, Neumann, etc... are ported if the "time response" is important? Wouldn't you expect them to be sealed?
When listening at low frequencies can you hear/locate the speaker. If not what mechanism might the brain use to separate and identify the short "time response" of the speaker from the long "time response" of the room?
I am not disputing that speakers have different low frequency transients responses but I am struggling to see why it might be relevant in a room for adequately sized high fidelity speakers. Small ported 2 ways I might give you.
Can you please provide a reference/link.
I don't know what resolution magazine is so cannot comment directly but many audio publications are less than reliable when it comes to what might be called reality. The possibility exists that you might have misunderstood your tutors.
This appears to be nonsense. As mentioned above, for a linear system they are exactly the same thing. The Fourier transform of the time response is the frequency response (amplitude and phase) and the inverse Fourier transform of the frequency response is the time response.
Augustine,
You really do mind how loud it will go- at 25 Hz almost 100 dB is needed just to sound as loud as a conversational level 70 dB at 1000 Hz.
If you like levels like car audio people listening to hip hop, 120 dB at 25 Hz would only be starting to "get there", and could cost 5-10 times what 100 dB would cost.
I chose to use the Mackie HRS120 sub over building anything for my home studio control room, +/-1.5 dB from 20 to 150 Hz (-3 dB @19 Hz), it is rated at 117 dB SPL at 1 meter, though in reality can do something around 105 dB in the 20 Hz range in room.
The single HRS120 can more than keep up with the Tannoy PBM 6.5 monitors I use at one meter distance. It has built in processing, variable crossover outputs and a subwoofer bypass foot switch jack which I find quite useful for an instant "reality check" to make sure the mix translates to speakers without VLF capability.
After designing and building hundreds of speakers of all types for more than 40 years, I now recognize that for a studio application, it is actually more cost effective to purchase mass produced powered monitors that have been properly designed, voiced, crossed over with driver protection built in than it is to DIY.
You could still make some lovely looking stands for the monitors of your choice from logs...
Art
Last edited:
seriously ? In your opinion paying 1350 pounds for, in my case, passive pmc tb2s which contains only 100 pounds worth of drivers cannot be beaten by DIY ing it ? I have to admit Im a little shocked and dissapointed if thats true ! So you dont think its worth building one from a kit ? Like the kingroy4 thing ?
I mean exactly what I said - how long the driver takes to stop vibrating at a given frequency after the input signal has ceased to output that frequency.
A good question to which I do not know the answer - in this case I guess youd have to write to the author of resolution. However the fact that different speakers give very different responses indicate the room is not the cause as the only thing changing is the speaker.
It should do yes - you should be able to see longer decay times in say, a waterfall graph in REW.
Probably to get a lower frequency response- if you look at the measurements in the resolution reviews of genelec etc - they the ported ones often dont have a great time response at low frequencies. Well in the pro audio world many people say that sealed boxes are preferable for this very reason - its the explanation that the NS10 became ubiquitous. scroll down to "NS10 Technology & Measurements" in this article :
The Yamaha NS10 Story
The time response is what is theorised made it such a popular speaker. Interestingly objective measurements often coincide with subjective impressions - speakers that measure a good time response at low frequencies are often described as having a tight bass etc etc
You can localise bass better than people suppose (according to some listening tests and experience). However in this case the effect of the room on the low frequencies, soundcard,amplifier and the output of the speaker added together is called the "transfer function". In this case if you increased or decreased the decay times of lower frequencies of the speaker or the room - it would increase the decay times of lower frequencies in this transfer function as a whole - you would not be able to tell which was which in an abx test - however the obvious solution is to have both room and speakers optimised for your needs. The important thing is that the decay times be uniform across the frequency range - the BBC recommendation for control room speakers and room combined is that no frequency decay time differ more than 10 percent of any other.
Because the transfer function is not only dependant on the room - it is also dependant on the speakers.
I think the NS10 above is quite good - this one is from resolution :
http://www.resolutionmag.com/pdfs/SWEETS~1/LOWFRE~1.PDF
also have a look at some of the resolution magazines I posted.
I do not think I have misunderstood this - though it is of course possible there are an awful lot of audio myths online. I am a big fan of the audio critic though and I it makes sense to me - I guess it all boils down to what is really audible ? What really improves sound.. Thats why I posted a link to the reviews of the magazine to you - please have a look at least a couple of them before commenting further - here it is again :
Resolution
I probably confused things by saying time domain . Its a long time since Ive done any fourier stuff - however that is not the sort of time response I'm talking about here - we are just talking about decay times of different frequencies in a speaker cone (not DSP).
Anyway interesting discussion - please do read those links before we continue it !
Last edited:
I found the article interesting in indicating what you are picking up on. I read the review of the K&H 0410 which reinforced things.
The first problem is that the time and frequency response of a linear system are exactly the same thing. They are not different in the way the author seems to want the reader to believe (I have some difficulty believing the author doesn't know this). The second problem is the absence of how the speaker response and the room response combine. This would show when a change in the speaker's transient response might be relevant and when it is unlikely to be.
The first problem is that the time and frequency response of a linear system are exactly the same thing. They are not different in the way the author seems to want the reader to believe (I have some difficulty believing the author doesn't know this). The second problem is the absence of how the speaker response and the room response combine. This would show when a change in the speaker's transient response might be relevant and when it is unlikely to be.
This would seem important to establish. I know the author of that article claimed he knew better than the pro speaker companies but do you really think it likely? Neumann, Genelec, etc... don't know what they are doing when they opt for ported instead of sealed for their expensive large subwoofers?
You are confident that a small change to a large decay time will make the large decay time significantly longer?
Andy mate - I am enjoying our wee chat but I will have to get back to you on this - I have a lot of work to do and the other halfs giving me evils 😉
Last edited:
"yes I have reasonable monitors not so great on the bottom end though (the transfer function of my room, monitors and converters etc is +/- 5 db but only down to 60 hz - I have a sub but sits a bit flabby on the decay times - room is well treated)"
Why not do this in two parts, then?
Part 1) Better subs. Use them with the TB2S+ which, as you say are reasonable and used in many studios. You can meet your goal of 25Hz - 20kHz with less effort and well under budget.
Part 2) Upgrade your mains sometime later - get whatever you like, that can cover 150Hz to 20kHz
Sealed @ 25Hz is hard work. This pairing seems to offer good performance, within your budget:
1 PWR-ICE250 dsp plate amplifier (2x250W @ 4Ω) - price 245 pounds
2 Dayton Audio UM18-22 18" (sealed -3dB at 31Hz) - price 365 pounds
This is a straight conversion of US prices - without VAT and shipping. You'd save a good bit of coin if you could source the drivers locally. The processing ability and usable frequency range* of this combo give a good amount of flexibility.
Checking the efficiency of that 18" with a calculator here mh-audio.nl - Home, I get just 85.8dB. This calculator is a good (pessimistic) reality check on manufacturer's claims.
Your max output would be:
85.8 dB
+3dB for 2 drivers
-3dB for equalisation (to drop the -3dB point from 31Hz to 25Hz)
+23dB for 250watts
= 109dB (roughly), from a pair of ~120 litre enclosures.
The SPL (peak) of the TB2S+ is 113dB, so its long term maximum would also be about 109dB. Therefore, if the TB2S+ is currently loud enough for you, this twin 18" bass system should also be loud enough.
As a sanity check, Data-Bass lists 110.8dB as the 18" driver's max long-term average @ 25Hz (using 1 driver with an amp that delivers up to 1400 watts into 4ohms), so my maths seems pretty good, here.**
* From data-bass: "The time domain measurements show nothing worth worrying about below 200Hz with a clean group delay well under 1 cycle and no significant ringing. Of note is that the 420Hz response peak does show up as latent energy. This driver is best used under 150Hz."
**note that most sealed options in that chart have the same or less output at 25Hz. Those with much higher max SPL are well out of your budget, and are also a lot bigger.
Why not do this in two parts, then?
Part 1) Better subs. Use them with the TB2S+ which, as you say are reasonable and used in many studios. You can meet your goal of 25Hz - 20kHz with less effort and well under budget.
Part 2) Upgrade your mains sometime later - get whatever you like, that can cover 150Hz to 20kHz
Sealed @ 25Hz is hard work. This pairing seems to offer good performance, within your budget:
1 PWR-ICE250 dsp plate amplifier (2x250W @ 4Ω) - price 245 pounds
2 Dayton Audio UM18-22 18" (sealed -3dB at 31Hz) - price 365 pounds
This is a straight conversion of US prices - without VAT and shipping. You'd save a good bit of coin if you could source the drivers locally. The processing ability and usable frequency range* of this combo give a good amount of flexibility.
Checking the efficiency of that 18" with a calculator here mh-audio.nl - Home, I get just 85.8dB. This calculator is a good (pessimistic) reality check on manufacturer's claims.
Your max output would be:
85.8 dB
+3dB for 2 drivers
-3dB for equalisation (to drop the -3dB point from 31Hz to 25Hz)
+23dB for 250watts
= 109dB (roughly), from a pair of ~120 litre enclosures.
The SPL (peak) of the TB2S+ is 113dB, so its long term maximum would also be about 109dB. Therefore, if the TB2S+ is currently loud enough for you, this twin 18" bass system should also be loud enough.
As a sanity check, Data-Bass lists 110.8dB as the 18" driver's max long-term average @ 25Hz (using 1 driver with an amp that delivers up to 1400 watts into 4ohms), so my maths seems pretty good, here.**
* From data-bass: "The time domain measurements show nothing worth worrying about below 200Hz with a clean group delay well under 1 cycle and no significant ringing. Of note is that the 420Hz response peak does show up as latent energy. This driver is best used under 150Hz."
**note that most sealed options in that chart have the same or less output at 25Hz. Those with much higher max SPL are well out of your budget, and are also a lot bigger.
Last edited:
I've just built a 3 way using the Seas C18 and (currently) the Dayton RS225.
It sounds very nice. The wide dispersion pluses outweigh any negatives for me in my application.
I'm using a passive xover for the coax and active for the woofer, and EQing the overall response using a MiniDSP.
The KingRoy kit mentioned above would be an excellent choice. The Seas L26RXNP is a cheaper alternative to the ROY.
It sounds very nice. The wide dispersion pluses outweigh any negatives for me in my application.
I'm using a passive xover for the coax and active for the woofer, and EQing the overall response using a MiniDSP.
The KingRoy kit mentioned above would be an excellent choice. The Seas L26RXNP is a cheaper alternative to the ROY.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.