Been many years since I looked for a sub driver. I have about 3 cu ft available. Goal is HT, but not excessive special effects and a small room. Currently running a 12 inch Dayton Titanic. I may keep it, but looking to drop a level in distortion. Probably sealed as I can't make a BP-4 broad enough without impossible ports. Could run a pair of 12's or maybe a 15. HP probably about 100 Hz. "Affordable" Looking at the Peerless, CSS. Years ago it was Shiva. What's current thinking?
Interested to see where this one goes.
The Seas 10" subwoofer unit might be worth a look. Kartesian Acoustic has also released a 10" driver which seems pretty impressive on paper.
Chris
The Seas 10" subwoofer unit might be worth a look. Kartesian Acoustic has also released a 10" driver which seems pretty impressive on paper.
Chris
Spent the day looking for a pair of 12's. Have not looked at the 10's. Most seem to require very large boxes or non-workable vents. I do not have the ability to run PRs. The CSS 12 in a ported box looks far better than my current and looking at the new Peerless 15. A bit concerned though with distortion of a 15 inch paper cone.
I guess tomorrow I'll search 10's. My Dayton is actually a 10. If I could buy a second, I would give that a try but NLA.
Search did not find KA.
I guess tomorrow I'll search 10's. My Dayton is actually a 10. If I could buy a second, I would give that a try but NLA.
Search did not find KA.
See my thread a tale of 12” subwoofers...of the seven 12” subs I’ve tested so far the Dayton reference series has the lowest distortion. I’d only recommend it however for a low crossover to the mains as its upper bass lacks impact. If you want chest thumping impact go for the diysg magnum with a low tuned passive radiator.
I think I have a solution. As it happens, I have an RS265HF on the shelf. So a second one is less expensive, lowering the "domestic distortion" factor. The 12 inch CSS is nice, but If I believe the late Paul Klipsch who demonstrated efficiency and distortion being inversely proportional, and my own measurements showing how excursion is a non-linear driver for distortion, my goal to lower real distortion is as low apparent amplifier power and as low excursion where the most content is expected. I figure far more content between 50 and 100 than 20 and 50. The later being mostly effects and having a larger masking. I wil say, price no object, a pair of the 12 inch CSS would be outstanding in all respects. Their motor is amazing.
The following graph has enough added filters the response as expected in the room after the AVR does it's thing for eq. so the solutions are comparable in-use. Actually probably light on room gain so the below 50 is probably pessimistic.
So , a pair of the HF's Several solutions.
Red: Existing single 10 inch Titanic sealed. Clearly anything is an improvement.
Orange: two HF's sealed 4 cu ft. and still not critical Q. Barely exceeding 1/3 x-max so actually probably not a bad choice for simplicity
Yellow: 2 HFs in a ported 4 cu ft. A good start.
Blue: 2 HFs BP-4 It is a BIG box. 5 cu ft. Probably have to build modular or I could not lift it into place. In theory, not being a direct radiator, the front chamber will filter some of the harmonics making the actual HD lower. I have not measured this myself.
BP-6 is not shown. It has potential, but port dimensions were not workable.
The following graph has enough added filters the response as expected in the room after the AVR does it's thing for eq. so the solutions are comparable in-use. Actually probably light on room gain so the below 50 is probably pessimistic.
So , a pair of the HF's Several solutions.
Red: Existing single 10 inch Titanic sealed. Clearly anything is an improvement.
Orange: two HF's sealed 4 cu ft. and still not critical Q. Barely exceeding 1/3 x-max so actually probably not a bad choice for simplicity
Yellow: 2 HFs in a ported 4 cu ft. A good start.
Blue: 2 HFs BP-4 It is a BIG box. 5 cu ft. Probably have to build modular or I could not lift it into place. In theory, not being a direct radiator, the front chamber will filter some of the harmonics making the actual HD lower. I have not measured this myself.
BP-6 is not shown. It has potential, but port dimensions were not workable.
Attachments
Yup. 2 10's BP-4 do have sufficient displacement to be an advantage over the Peerless 15.
I have just about 5.5 cu ft total so just enough to do a built-in including driver , amp and ports. Says 2 4 inch faired ports have low enough Mach number, but I might go bigger if I can find some made.
I have just about 5.5 cu ft total so just enough to do a built-in including driver , amp and ports. Says 2 4 inch faired ports have low enough Mach number, but I might go bigger if I can find some made.
Settled on a solution using BP-4 with a pair of RSS 10's. Larger drivers would not get me a high enough crossover and I don't need the lower extension. 4 cu ft total, and the tuning ratio came out as 5:3. A pair of 5 inch ports or maybe a slot to keep Mach under .025 @ 110 dB. 12's or a 15 could not cross high enough for the AVR crossover to be in charge.
I was able to tune a BP-6 but after adding the filters for "as used", no advantage and a 45 inch port is not too handy.
I was able to tune a BP-6 but after adding the filters for "as used", no advantage and a 45 inch port is not too handy.
Let us know how you like the sound of the bp4. So far the ones I've tried weren't good but I was using cheap drivers and the tuning was high. Too much group delay is also an issue.
but bp, can't help (group delay)
if I remember, the Dayton infinite baffle subs can work well in a "too small" bandpass.
if I remember, the Dayton infinite baffle subs can work well in a "too small" bandpass.
On advice from others who have built them, I was alerted to the issue where a peak will amplify any HD that falls in that range. One thought was to shift the peak to the low end where there are no harmonics to excite it, but would be venerable to IMD. So, reworked yet again. Only 2 dB ripple in the pass band. Not as low excursion as the highly peaked version, but compared to my current single Titanic, 1/6 the excursion @ 80 Hz. A difficult port length, but can be done. Getting a flatter response or shifting the BP lower required impossible ports. ( 2, 105 inch long 5 inchers for one very nice efficient flat band. ). No room for PRs. Same problem with BP-6. If I had about 8 cu ft, it might be easier. Almost tempting to build it in the attic and use those insane ports.
Second driver came today, so I'll pick up the wood tomorrow. Tested the Seas 27TBCD tweeter and is is about half the distortion as the 27TBFC so that is good. CSD is not as good as I would like, but again, better. I was surprised that in-box @ 2.6Volts @ 1K, normalized for equal output, the distortion of a pair of RS150-4's is quite acceptable from 90 Hz up. Under .5% Sorry Wavecor, not going to get to sell me 6 woofers. So the new sub and rebuilt mains/center should be quite a step up. The question is of course what my wife hears with her super-sensitive hearing.
Second driver came today, so I'll pick up the wood tomorrow. Tested the Seas 27TBCD tweeter and is is about half the distortion as the 27TBFC so that is good. CSD is not as good as I would like, but again, better. I was surprised that in-box @ 2.6Volts @ 1K, normalized for equal output, the distortion of a pair of RS150-4's is quite acceptable from 90 Hz up. Under .5% Sorry Wavecor, not going to get to sell me 6 woofers. So the new sub and rebuilt mains/center should be quite a step up. The question is of course what my wife hears with her super-sensitive hearing.
I have a pair of SDX10 sitting unused for quite some time - can’t remember if they were 4ohms or 8ohms? - do you have a design you could share?
4Ω.
Yes, they are both for a pair of woofers. With only 2 if you want stereo you’ll have to cut them in half.
Simple.well designed sealed boxes, small one is 44 litres, larger one is a better volume can’t recall its volume (50 litres?)
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/downloads/TwinSDX10PPP-woof-230712.pdf (sorry, they really need some detail tweaking)
dave
Yes, they are both for a pair of woofers. With only 2 if you want stereo you’ll have to cut them in half.
Simple.well designed sealed boxes, small one is 44 litres, larger one is a better volume can’t recall its volume (50 litres?)
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/downloads/TwinSDX10PPP-woof-230712.pdf (sorry, they really need some detail tweaking)
dave
If 2 in a box, you have the option of mounting one reversed with the theory of it reducing even order harmonics.
The CSS was my second choice, but as I had one Dayton already and came up with a workable design I hope, going that route. If they do not perform as I hope then the SX10's might be next, though for that much investment, I might consider moving the enclosure into the attic and using the front ports for the exit into the room. Vb would no longer be a limitation.
The CSS was my second choice, but as I had one Dayton already and came up with a workable design I hope, going that route. If they do not perform as I hope then the SX10's might be next, though for that much investment, I might consider moving the enclosure into the attic and using the front ports for the exit into the room. Vb would no longer be a limitation.
FWIW, In a BP-4 alignment, I get virtually identical results between the Dayton and CSS, but the CSS total volume is a little smaller in all cases.
Differences may show up greater with higher excursion . 200W into a pair of either provides 110 dB. This is with measured Dayton specs so SPL is a good 3 dB less than published. I do not know how optimistic CSS is with their specs.
Food for thought: It looks possible to do a BP-4 alignment and cross to a 5 or 6 inch mid-bass properly tuned without a crossover network for a monkey coffin 3-way. Or for those crazy full range who believe crossovers are the devils work, cross to a 6 inch full range with nothing but a pad.
Differences may show up greater with higher excursion . 200W into a pair of either provides 110 dB. This is with measured Dayton specs so SPL is a good 3 dB less than published. I do not know how optimistic CSS is with their specs.
Food for thought: It looks possible to do a BP-4 alignment and cross to a 5 or 6 inch mid-bass properly tuned without a crossover network for a monkey coffin 3-way. Or for those crazy full range who believe crossovers are the devils work, cross to a 6 inch full range with nothing but a pad.
At the expense of 3rd order, and with a driver as linear as the SDX10 orienting the drivers to kill even ordered you get little change. And you have a magnet sticking out and not as effective force cancellation.
I would not do it.
dave