C/E/X PA Flat to 30 (FT30) PA TH Awesomeness

[tb46]

Hi,

Is Xoc1's TH from Post #476 (here) the one from wood1y's thread Post #98? If so, it promises one of the best SPL responses for the 18TBX100 in Hornresp, and it can possibly be improved a little bit, e.g.: by adding a reflector at the 1st bend after S2 that would also increase the mouth (S5) area. Anyway,-FWIW-for the 18TBX100 that one would be hard to improve.

Regards,

 

[CRESCENDO]

Looks good, epa. Some questions:

For the left design (47.25" x 33.5" x 17.71" - no, that's not too big), I know I can run a stack of 3 on each side, but would there be any problems with putting 2 stacks of 3 next to each other (since the panels will create a bit of distance between the mouths of each stack - the mouths wont be right next to each other)? I do remember you saying some good things about symmetrical cabinets, however. And I really like the looks of it.
From an output standpoint, would I be better off using the bottom right design (33.46" x 33.46" x 25.6")? Stacking 2x3, the mouths may be joined.

 

[CRESCENDO]

Hi Oliver,

Yes, that's the same one. That's the cab I really want to use, but I don't have the funds for more drivers and more power yet. I'm considering using that cab with this RCF driver as it provides even more 30Hz than the tbx driver. It's about $50 more. Let me know what you think.

Happy new year!

 

[epa]

Looks good, epa. Some questions:

For the left design (47.25" x 33.5" x 17.71" - no, that's not too big), I know I can run a stack of 3 on each side, but would there be any problems with putting 2 stacks of 3 next to each other (since the panels will create a bit of distance between the mouths of each stack - the mouths wont be right next to each other)? I do remember you saying some good things about symmetrical cabinets, however. And I really like the looks of it.
From an output standpoint, would I be better off using the bottom right design (33.46" x 33.46" x 25.6")? Stacking 2x3, the mouths may be joined.

making a center stack you be better off right bottem.
making a stereo left and right stack you better of left .
if you have >3 amp channels (for the subs)you could use left one,in center stack, delaying the outside boxes gradual.(stack them vertical).
because you wil get some beam forming in the upper pasband when the aray is >4'wide
the mouth being 40 cm from the floor will create i tiny bit of down tilt wich is good .

and it all depends how the room shape is,in a narrow room some beamforming is a good thing.
and sometimes people like some"quiet(er)" spots in the room.

a narrow space between the boxes is not a problem.
grtz erik

 

[tb46]

Post #483

Hi Crescendo,

On paper there is so little difference between these two drivers that I would go with price and availability. It seems the RCF has a higher maximum mechanical excursion, so it may have a little more rugged suspension, but what you really need is input from someone who has used both of these in professional applications.

Regards,

 

[CRESCENDO]

making a center stack you be better off right bottem.
making a stereo left and right stack you better of left .
if you have >3 amp channels (for the subs)you could use left one,in center stack, delaying the outside boxes gradual.(stack them vertical).
because you wil get some beam forming in the upper pasband when the aray is >4'wide
the mouth being 40 cm from the floor will create i tiny bit of down tilt wich is good .

and it all depends how the room shape is,in a narrow room some beamforming is a good thing.
and sometimes people like some"quiet(er)" spots in the room.

a narrow space between the boxes is not a problem.
grtz erik

For my show thats every other week, I stack in a corner. For other shows here and there, stereo stacks would be useful.

If I'm running subs and tops, I will only have 2 sub channels. For this setup, I will be running 3 subs per channel off a qsc plx3402.

 

[CRESCENDO]

Hi Crescendo,

On paper there is so little difference between these two drivers that I would go with price and availability. It seems the RCF has a higher maximum mechanical excursion, so it may have a little more rugged suspension, but what you really need is input from someone who has used both of these in professional applications.

Regards,

Very true. What I may need to do is order one of each from PE and test (without showing any installation markings) each driver and return the runner up.

 

[epa]

stacking 6 cabs horizontal in the corner works gr8.
this wil give over 140 db db @ 30 hz

 

[CRESCENDO]

Well, I'm 5'8", so stacking that 6th cab over 7' in the air isn't too practical
Come to think of it, that corner begins to angle out at about the 6ft mark, so I'd have to run a 2x3 config in that corner.

Another thought for the left cab - what about stacking 3 wide, vertically x2?

 

[epa]

stacking vertical gives i wide horizontal coverige and a narow vertical coverige(less reflections of the ceiling)
stacking horizontal wil give you wide vertical coverige and narow horizonla coverige(less reflections of the side walls)
this becomes more obvius as freq rizes.
in both situations would choose stack with 6 vertical ,then in the corner you could delay 1 set of 3 boxes a bit,if you get coverige probs.
with the center stack you could staircase the outer subs(physically delaying them) if you get coverige
_____........... _____
..........______

best would be 6 vertical ,but yes that would be an impressive pyle of 260cm high.
i dont think the box need to be that heavy tough.i wouldn't put much bracings and deflectors in.
maybe glue some angled polyuretaan blocs in as corner"guides"

grtz erik

edit / in post 488 i meant horizontal positsioned vertical stacked there

 

[CRESCENDO]

So, if the left enclosure is "v1" (version 1) and bottom right is "v2" (version 2), then:

1. center stack is best w/v2 (post #484)
2. stereo stack is best w/v1 (post #484)
and
3. stacking 6 horizontally is great (post #488)
4. stack vertically for wide horizontal coverage; narrow for vert coverage (post #490)
5. stack horizontally for wide vert coverage; narrow for horiz coverage (post #490)
6. best = 6 vertical (post #490) (might contradict #3, unless you mean stacked vertically, but positioned horizontally - like you said at the bottim of post #490).

Hopefully, these images will clear things up (forgive the 2D program imperfections). THESE ARE NOT TO SCALE, for reference only


When I asked about stacking v1 - 3 wide, vertically (3x2):

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

or w/v2 (3x2):

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

When talking center stacks, were you referring to this (or more like the setup at the bottom of this post?)?
w/v2 (2x3):

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

What about splitting this up for stereo stacks?


I was worried about the drivers being too spaced apart here w/v1 (2x3):

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

This is the one #6 started to sound like. This is the one that will give wide horiz coverage, right? (I don't have enough amps to delay the outer cabs properly)
v1 (row of 6 vert)

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

v2 (row of 6 vert)

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

but, I think you were talking about and recommending this:

v1 (6 horiz stacked) (I can't get this one outta my head )

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

and what about w/v2? (6 horiz stacked):

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

So many different configuration possibilities.... One could even split up the vertically positioned (row of 6 vert) v1 & v2 cabs into stereo stacks.

 

[epa]

i admit its a bit confusing,but a picture says a 1000 words

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

its a bit strange looking but it works

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

this wil work also ,but...

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

this will work better.
you can easily split for stereo use.

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

this wil narrow the beam a bit in the horizontal plane in the upper band of the subs,say from 80 hz up.

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

the oposit ,the wider the aray ,the narower the horizontal beam,but you can physically delay the outer boxes by staircasing them or make an inverted arc with them.

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

same sitiuation as above,(i would try this upside down)

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

this is imo the best situation(if you choose this model)
this wil give excelent horizontal coverige(and looks great )

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

same as above(looks good 2.

here is some reading stuf.
it wil help a bit in understanding how to implement multyple sub aray.
greats erik

 

[CRESCENDO]

I really like the stack of 6 high w/v1. It seems to be a great choice for installs or for shows that don't happen too regularly. I'd like to keep this option open for future possibilities. I can see v2 being a bit more portable/manageable. If you think I'd get very similar results w/either cab, I'd like to go v2 (bottom right). I hope I don't shoot myself in the foot with this decision.

 

[Djim]

 

[CRESCENDO]

I'm new to the term, "site wing". Looks like a partition of some sort (from the 2D drawing).

 

[Djim]

Just a reflecting surface, could be anything like the top of a flight case (with centre brace). You probably don't even need to delay any cabs independently...

 

[epa]

niet aan gedacht
good one djim,this way the width doesnt exceed 4 feet.

@ justin i wil sim them both ,so you can choose.
how high wil you x-over the subs?

 

[CRESCENDO]

Currently, I cross between 85-100. Depending on what sounds best, of course.

 

[Djim]

Out of curiosity, what's the final HornResp input because it becomes a little unclear...

 

[CRESCENDO]

It was based off of this:

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

But I believe he is going to apply the real dimensions and see if it comes close to the HR inputs.