Sorry🙂 its not covid. It feels like claustrophobia! I hope its better where you are😀 i think theres some definite connections to peoples isolation type of thing currently, but it fuels a fire if you use it in a creative search for info that distracts the actual world currently. Im free of Covid worry, but cursed with ignoring it..
Last edited:
Easy Booger. You have posted one of the response already. No spam, no trippleposts. 🙂
martinsson:
I have simmed 18NW100 in the same bin, but tuned to 40Hz instead of 29Hz. With such tuning, it keeps up SPL wise, and still maintains 5Hz lead compared to ROAR. It seems that every hertz down has a high price. Hence comparison with 21". It seems to me that only with medicore 15" compared, the roar 12" would finally outdo such speaker in sims. //Damn the 15TBW100 seems that it can keep up too! The 15TBX100 is outdone by a hair.
ROAR is great feat in itself, and has its own featureset, but these discussions I see remind me of "Cubo" boasting in such a way, that even a small bin/small driver keeps up with 18" BR. ROAR is not small. But At least Circlo is more humble about that in my opinion. He recommends it for its features, feel and such, which is completely legit in my opinion. Not for enormous SPL produced, killing all competition in that regard.
martinsson:
I have simmed 18NW100 in the same bin, but tuned to 40Hz instead of 29Hz. With such tuning, it keeps up SPL wise, and still maintains 5Hz lead compared to ROAR. It seems that every hertz down has a high price. Hence comparison with 21". It seems to me that only with medicore 15" compared, the roar 12" would finally outdo such speaker in sims. //Damn the 15TBW100 seems that it can keep up too! The 15TBX100 is outdone by a hair.
ROAR is great feat in itself, and has its own featureset, but these discussions I see remind me of "Cubo" boasting in such a way, that even a small bin/small driver keeps up with 18" BR. ROAR is not small. But At least Circlo is more humble about that in my opinion. He recommends it for its features, feel and such, which is completely legit in my opinion. Not for enormous SPL produced, killing all competition in that regard.
Last edited:
I'm sorry if I came across as if I was boasting or not being humble about the various designprinciples we are discussing, belive me that is the very last thing I want to do, I only wanted to show another way of aproaching things, that instead of looking at volume we look at cutting down the driver complement, using the same drivers, that is all.
A well designed BR has its place in any inventory for many reasons which we have found out in this thread, and all the reasons put forward makes alot of sence and I will not dispute or dismiss that at all.
A well designed BR has its place in any inventory for many reasons which we have found out in this thread, and all the reasons put forward makes alot of sence and I will not dispute or dismiss that at all.
Last edited:
Bhaha no, this was misunderstood and does not have anything to do with this topic. I'm actually happy to see your response and agree. I did not notice you would boast. You seem to be too nice about it, to the point of accusing yourself. Or it is my bad english.
I see your approach and I agree. It is a way. We all have our preferences. The thing is, that we did not agree upon things such as "frequency response goals". While ROAR 12 cuts down on driver needs, It looks nearly unusable to me with this frequency response. I would need at least 40Hz - 3dB after HPF. It seems that this is not possible. Matching any other driver to ROAR12 is no solution for me then. It might not be so for others, and so it is good that we discuss details, what we like, what we need and such. Do not think that point has not been taken from your arguments. It was.
That way I guess we do not have dispute, disagreement or conflict. We just present to each other our findings.
Regarding overall box package, I would try to continue comparison with 15TBW100 in ported box then. Smaller simpler ported box would have less manufacturing costs, and the difference in price might offset difference in price between drivers (12TBX100). What do you think? Just blind paper comparison, no preferences in sound.
I see your approach and I agree. It is a way. We all have our preferences. The thing is, that we did not agree upon things such as "frequency response goals". While ROAR 12 cuts down on driver needs, It looks nearly unusable to me with this frequency response. I would need at least 40Hz - 3dB after HPF. It seems that this is not possible. Matching any other driver to ROAR12 is no solution for me then. It might not be so for others, and so it is good that we discuss details, what we like, what we need and such. Do not think that point has not been taken from your arguments. It was.
That way I guess we do not have dispute, disagreement or conflict. We just present to each other our findings.
Regarding overall box package, I would try to continue comparison with 15TBW100 in ported box then. Smaller simpler ported box would have less manufacturing costs, and the difference in price might offset difference in price between drivers (12TBX100). What do you think? Just blind paper comparison, no preferences in sound.
Last edited:
Sure, and thanks for explaining, I think we see things pretty much the same way, the comparison that feel would be most interesting, purely as an exercise in theory, was to look at the most common application, standard touring 218 BR, and compare it to the ROAR18 which then uses half the driver complement and see how they compare, if you have alot of these it may become interesting economically, if not otherwise.
Nice discussion so far.
FWIW, my favourite cab at the moment is OD-TL. All the advantages of BR in a slightly larger box, with wider usable bandwidth and less power compression. What's not to like? 🙂
FWIW, my favourite cab at the moment is OD-TL. All the advantages of BR in a slightly larger box, with wider usable bandwidth and less power compression. What's not to like? 🙂
Im only doing this for fun. In a world of people who sometimes aren't. and they are pressured for many reasons. Probably like i am at my job and most people are when it is very important .
Im not bound by ‘better’ or a buyer so im free to make anything. And screw it up too.
My ‘roar’ is much longer and uses two driveopposed. The response is totally different, maybe ? I dont really know. Theres mo official ROAR response i guess. and the persuasion to a lower Fb is potentially easier as theres a kink you can see and play with to mass load the upper pipe. theres a few changes to HR or id be building a few 10” versions of similar. The sim opens even more idea and doors and even more chambers ... but if size matters wed all drive motorcycles in rain? big is only bad because you haven't disguised it yet or ? i dunno, but why theres a battle with the wrong end of physics and not just more creative furniture with subwoofers in it?
Im not bound by ‘better’ or a buyer so im free to make anything. And screw it up too.
My ‘roar’ is much longer and uses two driveopposed. The response is totally different, maybe ? I dont really know. Theres mo official ROAR response i guess. and the persuasion to a lower Fb is potentially easier as theres a kink you can see and play with to mass load the upper pipe. theres a few changes to HR or id be building a few 10” versions of similar. The sim opens even more idea and doors and even more chambers ... but if size matters wed all drive motorcycles in rain? big is only bad because you haven't disguised it yet or ? i dunno, but why theres a battle with the wrong end of physics and not just more creative furniture with subwoofers in it?
@Brian - interesting, do you have any OD-TL design made or in the works in the touring 218 BR category, sizewise or output/range wise that you can share?
@Booger welds - That's the thing, and partly the reason why I started this thread, there is no lack of diversity in the diy community, so I wanted to understand why it was so different in the professional realm, and alot of good explanations has been put forward as to why this is the case.
@Booger welds - That's the thing, and partly the reason why I started this thread, there is no lack of diversity in the diy community, so I wanted to understand why it was so different in the professional realm, and alot of good explanations has been put forward as to why this is the case.
Brian: Normally, nothing. I played with that idea too.
Once I attemt the most power dense solution, the TL is just tad bigger. With deep drivers like 18SW115/18DS115, it usually requires a chamber physically, so it unfortunately gets big enough that larger port would work as well.
martinsson: I will continue with 218 solution vs ROAR18 tomorrow. Here is ROAR12 vs 80l ported box with 15TBW100:
Image Upload For Everyone - Imageupload.io
The BR box would have about 130-140l total volume including quite large port and front grille for covering the speaker.
In the graph, the ported box has tiny tad milder roloff, and is excursion limited to 130dB in the walley compared to 127.5dB of the ROAR. These ported buggers really are power dense.
Stand by for the 18"s comparison. 🙂
Once I attemt the most power dense solution, the TL is just tad bigger. With deep drivers like 18SW115/18DS115, it usually requires a chamber physically, so it unfortunately gets big enough that larger port would work as well.
martinsson: I will continue with 218 solution vs ROAR18 tomorrow. Here is ROAR12 vs 80l ported box with 15TBW100:
Image Upload For Everyone - Imageupload.io
The BR box would have about 130-140l total volume including quite large port and front grille for covering the speaker.
In the graph, the ported box has tiny tad milder roloff, and is excursion limited to 130dB in the walley compared to 127.5dB of the ROAR. These ported buggers really are power dense.
Stand by for the 18"s comparison. 🙂
The offset driver is using the same fulcrum
As a paraflex endfired from
Both sides pipes if its built exactky the same interval( plus one) . thats all blurred in goofy flare rates and undefined folding and spacing between specifiic nulls. its nit a paraflex its a compound horn with no path whatso ever to offser the fromt output and vented distance to the full wave form length. just put that imtoa roar and mind the next harmonic or watch the spike reform
If nit repeatmh the folds as 3 to 1 that equals 1/4 of tge fundamental real wave.
1200 cm is then 300 and 100. and if you havebt tried it out. I guess it because that sim has nobody thinking? I ever forget everything i learned a month ago and gotta repeat the process?
Iguess if you fold these up an leave no exit path to the other output itss a bt different?
As a paraflex endfired from
Both sides pipes if its built exactky the same interval( plus one) . thats all blurred in goofy flare rates and undefined folding and spacing between specifiic nulls. its nit a paraflex its a compound horn with no path whatso ever to offser the fromt output and vented distance to the full wave form length. just put that imtoa roar and mind the next harmonic or watch the spike reform
If nit repeatmh the folds as 3 to 1 that equals 1/4 of tge fundamental real wave.
1200 cm is then 300 and 100. and if you havebt tried it out. I guess it because that sim has nobody thinking? I ever forget everything i learned a month ago and gotta repeat the process?
Iguess if you fold these up an leave no exit path to the other output itss a bt different?
Attachments
Last edited:
Well, there is that...
Have you tried folding them a per my POC6?
The Subwoofer DIY Page - Projects : Proof of Concept #6
Not really. Apart from my POC4 design, one that I did for a cousin that didn't make it into production (more to do with my cousin than the design), most of my tested designs involve boxes designed to fit in my vehicle for transport purposes. A 2x18 will definitely not fit 🙂.
I like the sound of both the POC6 and the "Boom Unit" that I built (it's a much smaller OD-TL built around an 8" driver). The POC6 doesn't see much play though because it cuts off @ 50 Hz. After several listening tests involving some test subjects, the 40 Hz POC3 (a TH) gets the most playtime. I'm planning to build a 40 Hz OD-TL or Paraflex design in a similar volume to see how they compare.
EXCELLENT discussion fellas!
All I know is BR's and TH's only need 7 panels in their simplest form.
There is no way a properly built 30Hz BR can compete with a properly built 30hz TH.
The TH wins in distortion, efficiency, and SQ.
A negative flare TH (T-TQWT or T-TQWP) can compete with a BR in enclosure size.
All I know is BR's and TH's only need 7 panels in their simplest form.
There is no way a properly built 30Hz BR can compete with a properly built 30hz TH.
The TH wins in distortion, efficiency, and SQ.
A negative flare TH (T-TQWT or T-TQWP) can compete with a BR in enclosure size.
Attachments
When comparing different design principles we can do so using several metrics, the question is what makes most sence? SQ and other subjective criterias that cannot be arrived at using a data driven approach will be difficult to argue for since this is down to personal reference, and extremely few, if anybody, are willing to take chances in that regard nowadays.
So what metrics or properties is important to compare?
So what metrics or properties is important to compare?
Brian Steele: Interesting idea. I will check that. But based on dimensions of my 21" BR, that is not possible to make it in the same volume unfortunately. The chamber needed for the driver alone is large already, and some more material heading towards the speaker magnet does not have much room.
martinsson: I have simmed 18DS115 in 218BR bin of the same volume as ROAR18 with the same driver. Again, BR is more power dense, which validates and justifies its existence. That´s probably what it is all about here. Nothing more. Of course I see it is expensive. Not worth it for small system user which doesn´t have such issues with transport and storage. Different story for 50 bins or user who does not want to additionally solve logistics.
For example, for me it is cheaper to stuff 4x 18" supercompact bin in my normal car, instead of 2xROAR18, because I would have to replace the car. The addditional price is $2000 for compact power dense subs, while larger car in the same parameters is possibly around $5000 or more if newer... That is my problem, so one cannot base this argument in generic comparison of bins. I get that.
See simulation:
ROAR18-218-BR — ImgBB
The BR bin is the one with not so low walley and deeper response.
BP1Fanatic: That is another fully valid view - if we talk driver-for-driver situation, no doubt BR is going to lose. I can see how it is very important in certain approach.
martinsson: I have simmed 18DS115 in 218BR bin of the same volume as ROAR18 with the same driver. Again, BR is more power dense, which validates and justifies its existence. That´s probably what it is all about here. Nothing more. Of course I see it is expensive. Not worth it for small system user which doesn´t have such issues with transport and storage. Different story for 50 bins or user who does not want to additionally solve logistics.
For example, for me it is cheaper to stuff 4x 18" supercompact bin in my normal car, instead of 2xROAR18, because I would have to replace the car. The addditional price is $2000 for compact power dense subs, while larger car in the same parameters is possibly around $5000 or more if newer... That is my problem, so one cannot base this argument in generic comparison of bins. I get that.
See simulation:
ROAR18-218-BR — ImgBB
The BR bin is the one with not so low walley and deeper response.
BP1Fanatic: That is another fully valid view - if we talk driver-for-driver situation, no doubt BR is going to lose. I can see how it is very important in certain approach.
Last edited:
Thank you Crashpc, both for the 12-21, 12-15 and 18-218 compares, the last one is pretty interesting, using the same form factor (size) of cabinet but half the number of drivers, and thereby also half the amplifier power, and still getting that close, that should make some sit up and pay attention, especially when considering a larger inventory.
martinsson: Just a homework, I was interested. You are welcome. It is very clear how efficient those designs are, and how much raw SPL can they dig from one driver. Anytime the driver and amp cost is priority, which is most of the time for DIYers, the waveguide/multiresonant/higher order systems win, hands down.
Now I wonder what would be the best driver and how much loading is possible/viable to use it to the maximum. Those modern sub drivers with long coils might be suboptimal, but on the other hand, you can compress the air only so much.
For example could we utilize the IPAL driver on a 12" cone?
Now I wonder what would be the best driver and how much loading is possible/viable to use it to the maximum. Those modern sub drivers with long coils might be suboptimal, but on the other hand, you can compress the air only so much.
For example could we utilize the IPAL driver on a 12" cone?
True, however I wonder why the same economic considerations would not apply for companies as well, but then again that would not mean much if the designs are not raider compliant, or in other way requested by the customer.
Concerning other more powerful drivers, one could load a ROAR18 with a 18IPAL or even a 21IPAL, or a ROAR15 with an 18 IPAL, if I recall the compression should be quite high but maybe still on the safe side .
Whether you like it or not, SQ (as judged by humans using legitimate methods) is the criterion.
Physical measures are a convenient simulation. If you read Toole's 3rd edition, your see hundreds of pages devoted to supporting the use of the spinorama approach to attempt to duplicate the judgments of human test groups.
B.