It has third octave band filters - 31 bands fullrange, and I find it does a good job with room modes. It also has 6 bands of parametric eq which could in theory be more accurate for room modes, however I use the 31 band eq to get it all flat, then use the parametric eqs to them shape the fullrange eq and do things like gently contour the bass and roll off the top end slightly as I find this less fatiguing and often a little more natural sounding.
With UC you can also put in dynamic eqs which actually decrease the amount of bass and top end with increased SPL levels - in effect to compensate for the ears natural response changes at different levels.
You can also use its dynamic filters and limiters to prevent overdriving your system or your drivers.
Regarding the balance of extension and overall SPL, it's a very personal choice. In my room a room mode gets me down to 22 Hz very easily, but below that point it takes a lot more work, so I've decided in that room I'm happy with 22 Hz. I could probably get down a lot lower, but I just don't think it's worthwhile. I find the bottom octave from 20 - 40 Hz gives some depth and something hard to describe. In movies in particular which have a very dark mood, something like Blade or thrillers and horror movies. However, I find the bass from around 30 - 50 Hz is the most fun and I'm reluctant to give up anything in that range. But, as I say, it's your choice how low you want to go.
I would expect that if you can't easily exceed 100 db or preferably 105 db at any point at 20 Hz or below, then you are losing the bass you can hear and feel for that which just moves the cone and adds distortion.
Sjoerd v L said:
Ok, now you are thinking on the right track. But consider, you still have an abnormally long port with this tuning. That's the main problem with the Peerless XLS drivers, they REALLY do need a good PR set-up to work at their full potential. Going with the matching xls PR's from Peerless will allow your lower tuning in smaller enclosures and have NO port resonances, or port chuffing, or excessive port lengths, etc. I have built several subwoofer systems based on the XLS drivers and unless you are just wanting to try something out of the ordinary, just to find out that the results are "ok" instead of "great", then by all means, go for it.
If you want the same amount and quality of output at those frequencies, say between 15Hz and 30Hz, without the additional costs of PR's, then I strongly suggest you find a different driver to play with.
Just my thoughts...
Noidster
Noid, have you found any difference between sims and measurements with the XLS? It seems like it doesn't like to go deep when I simulate it, difficult to get to 20 Hz, and you have to be a bit clever with filters to deal with the early rolloff. Considering this, I see no reason to go with a passive radiator over vented, if you implement the vents correctly with proper flares and a rumble filter. This driver has limited excursion, it should not be difficult to get a non chuffing vent. I just think passive radiators are a waste of money.
Re: Re: Dual XLS-12" sub design, cracked it? thoughts?
4.37inch x 82.4inch
But I changed my mind. Thinking of the same box but with a higher tuning of 15Hz.
This results in a pipe length of 109cm / 43inch.
This tube outer dimensions take 13,4L of space inside the box.
So the box needs 110+13,4=123,4L of inner dimensions.
theNoid said:
4.37inch x 82.4inch
But I changed my mind. Thinking of the same box but with a higher tuning of 15Hz.
This results in a pipe length of 109cm / 43inch.
This tube outer dimensions take 13,4L of space inside the box.
So the box needs 110+13,4=123,4L of inner dimensions.
theNoid said:
If I simulate the system with a PR instead of a pipe, most parameters are worse. Lower SPL in lowest frequencies, higher group delay... Seems like a high price to pay.
I have only built them as per the Peerless suggested alignments. Did once do a largish dual 12" XLS ported for a car and tuned it to 20Hz with a long, elbow bent, 4" pvc port with flared ends....port noise. Wasn't too bad cause the box was in the trunk so not really audible in the cabin. But go back and listen with the trunk open, and you could clearly hear the port chuffing on the very low notes. Sure we could have gone with a larger diameter port, but that would have meant it be even longer, and more complicated to fit in the box.
From there, I have never built any ported enclosures for home use using the Peerless XLS drivers. If someone prefers to use the XLS drivers I still suggest you stick to the Peerless recommended alignments and tweak lightly from there. Just my experiences is all.
Peerless XLS 12 Recommendations
Noidster
From there, I have never built any ported enclosures for home use using the Peerless XLS drivers. If someone prefers to use the XLS drivers I still suggest you stick to the Peerless recommended alignments and tweak lightly from there. Just my experiences is all.
Peerless XLS 12 Recommendations
Noidster
Check out www.northcreekmusic.com and see their subwoofer kit using the XLS driver and PR and the info pertaining to it. Just another example and more info as far as spl, tuning, and filters used and such to look at.
Noidster
Noidster
I've seen a box for the Adire Sadhara using a 4" flared vent and John at Acoustic Concepts who sells them said they have no problem with chuffing, and they have more than double the excursion of the XLS!
My AV12s are fine with a 4" vent, I have to try to get them to chuff, in actual use never had problems. This is without flares!
Another guy on the forum (Rabbitz) has a B&W sub with a 65mm vent with the 10" XLS in it and he claims there is no chuffing at all!
It can be done
My AV12s are fine with a 4" vent, I have to try to get them to chuff, in actual use never had problems. This is without flares!
Another guy on the forum (Rabbitz) has a B&W sub with a 65mm vent with the 10" XLS in it and he claims there is no chuffing at all!
It can be done
Whoa there, I thought we were talking about having both 12" drivers in the same box, using a single 4" port. If you are talking about each driver having it's own box and 4" port, such as yours do sir, then by all means, go for it.
A single AV12 in a 2.5 cube box ported with a 4" port to 22Hz has almost half the vent mach that the XLS sub has in a 4 cuber tuned to 16Hz with a 4" port as was being talked about I thought. Now throw in the dual XLS factor I thought we had here, and the vent mach is way up there. For the money involved, and overall performance, the AV12 is the hands down winner over the XLS in my opinion.
I cannot find the specs on the Sadhara driver, but I imagine the results would be somewhere about the same as the AV12 as far as vent tuning and speeds and such.
Hey guys, I was simply letting you know the experiences that I have had with the woofers that were being asked about, nothing more, nothing less.
Noidster
A single AV12 in a 2.5 cube box ported with a 4" port to 22Hz has almost half the vent mach that the XLS sub has in a 4 cuber tuned to 16Hz with a 4" port as was being talked about I thought. Now throw in the dual XLS factor I thought we had here, and the vent mach is way up there. For the money involved, and overall performance, the AV12 is the hands down winner over the XLS in my opinion.
I cannot find the specs on the Sadhara driver, but I imagine the results would be somewhere about the same as the AV12 as far as vent tuning and speeds and such.
Hey guys, I was simply letting you know the experiences that I have had with the woofers that were being asked about, nothing more, nothing less.
Noidster
Noid, well it might be a bit of a mixed up apples to oranges comparison. I will make a few points though:
* lower tuning actually reduces vent velocity
* excursion is also a factor
* main problem with the XLS is getting a reasonably sized vent to actually fit in the small boxes it is designed for
Designing small to mid sized vented boxes is a bit of a juggling challenge.
* lower tuning actually reduces vent velocity
* excursion is also a factor
* main problem with the XLS is getting a reasonably sized vent to actually fit in the small boxes it is designed for
Designing small to mid sized vented boxes is a bit of a juggling challenge.
theNoid said:
Sure, I suppose it can be done by going through the "juggling challenge", I just like getting comparable and sometimes better results by going the easier route if possible. I just know of to many people that have tried the ported low-tuning XLS12 route before that usually ended up with PR's is all. I will let you guys go at it with the XLS plans, good luck and keep us informed please.
Noidster
- Status
- Not open for further replies.