What about this one:
18FH500
https://faitalpro.com/en/products/LF_Loudspeakers/product_details/index.php?id=151070100
That is just another Pro woofer. If You look through the specs You quickly realize that it has almost same specs as Oberton 18B35, but Oberton has better motor with demodulating rings.
There is one woofer that's been made/optimized for home use, but price is more or less a joke.
Scan Speak Ellipticor 38WE
IIRC, my copy took about 3 or 4 weeks to arrive from Australia. That was about 10 years ago in the Fall - not the holiday shipping season. "Mixing with your mind" is not specifically a book about mastering. You may specially enjoy chapter 4; "That Killer Drum Sound". For mastering, my reference is "Mastering Audio", by Bob Katz.
What particular 'F' are you referring to?
The AE drivers do have a luxurious look. I bought the AETD15S drivers for performance. The looks, in a home or control room environment, are a bonus. I don't understand what a AE15H+ would give you more than a 15S or 15X. Perhaps a bit more HF extension with a compromise of low end. I agree that your 18H+ is one of the best 18" woofers made.
None of the drivers being examined here are efficiency deal breakers for SQ in a home or control room environment.
I don't care for resonant vented systems in a home environment. I think they create more problems than solutions. I prefer closed box, or heavily resistive ports or stuffed t-lines. All my ported boxes have stuffed resistive vents. The rolloff characteristics of a closed box or resistive port, better match the rollup characteristics of a listening room.
I'm glad to see you are making progress. Look forward to your result.
Last edited:
I actually did find that woofer, as I scanned through drivers on loudspeaker database. I was looking to see if Oberton had such an 18" once I discovered that the NMB600 was of high stature.
I bought all 4 600's that the shop had at $220/pc.....The AE driver is about dbl that for me in the states.
I will use the accumulated woofers to test configurations and ultimately the drivers that do not make it into the mains will be used in the auxiliary for the multisub approach.
My question is what criteria do you consider when looking at a 15" for home use? In my world outside of build quality and Burst decay performance, there is only Qes and Le, the lower the better.
Last edited:
Besides the usual "It sounds good to me!", what rational do you have to believe that pro woofers are not good for home use? Seems to me that a "good" woofer is useful regardless of the application.
That all is correct. Woofer should have low end extension though and pro woofers have their limits there as they need to deliver high SPL. If you make woofer that has low end extension, then you automaticly need to make it be able to deliver it with Xmax as it will only go into compression above certain SPL when it runs out of Xmax. It's all very simple chain of things that are trade-offs.
To add to things. Driving Xmax is always a challenge because parameters are changing with excursion. For that very reason it's best to avoid excursion in drivers and old golden saying "there is no replacement for displacements" points that for woofers it's best to go as big as possible as according to calculator you need 27mm Xmax from 18" to get you to 110dB@20Hz.
The BMS 18n862 has a good reputation as a 'hi-fi' proaudio 18" driver.
Ricci's review: https://data-bass.com/#/drivers/5b5f77b99e7e420004dab2f8?_k=h62j60
I couldn't be happier with the four i'm running for home use.
Ricci's review: https://data-bass.com/#/drivers/5b5f77b99e7e420004dab2f8?_k=h62j60
I couldn't be happier with the four i'm running for home use.
So I've been trying to shake my interest of dual 15" mids. This -> Mitchbas Binaural Recording <- is only teasing with more of what I like....In the recording you will here the effects of adjusting direct energy vs reverb and when I first heard this comparison it sounds exactly as I predict, a familiar change to anyone use to adjusting the wet/dry control of a reverb.....I find this demonstration of difference in direct energy as representation of an aspect that I wanted to push for my system. The concept was to create as much direct energy as possible in the smallest carbon foot print. The reduction in reverb vs Direct energy, to the listener, is one, that is truer to the signal vs being truer to the room. This is the experience one would need to make better choices for EQ and Dynamics as a sound engineer.
I feel that people who believe that certain monitors are best for mixing, are referring to smaller systems that allow better integration of the drivers due to smaller sizes on the baffle moving one step closer to concurrence....this and the inherent wide dispersion allow one to make good choices of where to sit instruments in the mix......the large systems have the dynamic compacity to allow one to judge levels and Dynamics accurately, in other words, EQ and Dynamic processing. I think a large two-way can image as good as the smaller two ways The silver bullet being a system with 15" midbass, multi subs, and a compression driver on whatever floats you boat between horns and waveguides. I am exploring this idea of direct energy so the obvious choice for me has always been whatever is biggest and doesn't jeopardize something valuable, which was made easier by myself placing low value on the size of the sweet spot.
I feel that people who believe that certain monitors are best for mixing, are referring to smaller systems that allow better integration of the drivers due to smaller sizes on the baffle moving one step closer to concurrence....this and the inherent wide dispersion allow one to make good choices of where to sit instruments in the mix......the large systems have the dynamic compacity to allow one to judge levels and Dynamics accurately, in other words, EQ and Dynamic processing. I think a large two-way can image as good as the smaller two ways The silver bullet being a system with 15" midbass, multi subs, and a compression driver on whatever floats you boat between horns and waveguides. I am exploring this idea of direct energy so the obvious choice for me has always been whatever is biggest and doesn't jeopardize something valuable, which was made easier by myself placing low value on the size of the sweet spot.
I think the negative vibe concerning dual 15"s for my design was the idea of side by side 15"s.....Has anyone ever listened to a system like below and thought "that darn comb filtering" or "that sure does sound phasey"???? I have some pretty good testimony from respectable input persuading one to not go this route. After some discussion it seems that low xovers may make this a worthy option....I know I've been discouraged from this configuration on this thread as well but were those people speaking from technicality or from experience??? Who here has listened to such systems and found the horizontal config to be subpar to their expectations>?
Last edited:
Interesting, I've been searching the internet to find testimonial about issues of comb filtering with the above design which is crossed at 650hz (not a 2.5way) I cannot find anything as of yet...