In another thread, member Wayne1 compared Earl Geddes' Summas to Tony Gee's Calpamos and preferred the latter, by stating:
"I have heard these in Tony Gee's listening room and was very impressed with how "natural" they sounded. VERY clean and extended high end.
Significantly better, IMHO, than a GedLee Summa. No horn "honkiness".
I guess this is illustrative of the 'HOM hype' and the 'diffraction horns are bad' dogma.
Not to dismiss Dr. Geddes' research, but in the end a loudspeaker system is more than a sum of theories.
It's quite obvious why the Calpamos is a better 'system'.
"I have heard these in Tony Gee's listening room and was very impressed with how "natural" they sounded. VERY clean and extended high end.
Significantly better, IMHO, than a GedLee Summa. No horn "honkiness".
I guess this is illustrative of the 'HOM hype' and the 'diffraction horns are bad' dogma.
Not to dismiss Dr. Geddes' research, but in the end a loudspeaker system is more than a sum of theories.
It's quite obvious why the Calpamos is a better 'system'.
Last edited:
110 dB in the nearfield is awfully loud.
Listen to an average dome tweeter at that level, provided it doesn't blow before it actually gets there.
2 reasons why both the Strauss MF-2 and the Calpamos are received so well are:
- the quality of the drivers behind the 2380
- the crossover networks.
Listen to an average dome tweeter at that level, provided it doesn't blow before it actually gets there.
2 reasons why both the Strauss MF-2 and the Calpamos are received so well are:
- the quality of the drivers behind the 2380
- the crossover networks.
Last edited:
I'm starting to have my reservations about taking a driver like the AE 15M and using eq to force it flat down to 30hz....though the xmax will allow it for the levels I desire....Maybe I should be keeping the woofer within its natural range and add another woofer that has an f3 in the 30's. I don't know whats the difference between a 3 way and a 2 way with a sub woofer attached? I like to cross at 130hz to the lowest woofer anyway.....would that be a 2way plus sub? why or why not?
Ro808 you make a strong argument, and the 2451 with aquaplas diaphragm is a highly clouted combo....I'm really disturbed that I can't have a tractrix like I desire. If i can find a way to manufacture a custom pair, I will. The way I've seen it done with a wood lathe doesn't seem to be the most precise method. I need to come up with a3d model to assume 3d printing prices....also desired material thickness.
Ro808 you make a strong argument, and the 2451 with aquaplas diaphragm is a highly clouted combo....I'm really disturbed that I can't have a tractrix like I desire. If i can find a way to manufacture a custom pair, I will. The way I've seen it done with a wood lathe doesn't seem to be the most precise method. I need to come up with a3d model to assume 3d printing prices....also desired material thickness.
you don't need it to go FLAT to 30Hz. In the vast majority of listening rooms you need to slope it down slowly because of the room modes. If you design it to be flat to 30Hz (with or without EQ), you'll have a boomy, unprecise bass.
You'll go acitve? (sry, didn't read the whole thread). To do that passive at that frequency, it's very expensive and sounds inferior (by a lot).
Good Point ICG.
If your room isn't large, it's usually better to have a gentle slope from 100Hz.
With some trial and error in placement, depending on carpeting, construction of floors, walls etc., it's often much easier to get a decent response in the low end.
Provided you don't need or want <30-35Hz, subs can often be omitted.
If your room isn't large, it's usually better to have a gentle slope from 100Hz.
With some trial and error in placement, depending on carpeting, construction of floors, walls etc., it's often much easier to get a decent response in the low end.
Provided you don't need or want <30-35Hz, subs can often be omitted.
Last edited:
Considering your requirements, especially in the bass, you might be better of with subs, but it's up to you to decide.
A round tractrix shouldn't be too difficult to build, or have made by a decent woodworker who know how to use a lathe and a template.
Here's some info that could be useful.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure its better to have a driver that plays flat to ~30hz, or have an f3 of, naturally, with its enclosure, vs using eq to extend its range, if that range is my design goal....which it is.
I don't know if anyone here has any experience of fidelity of bass when dealing with such a situation. The natural f3 of the dual 15M is ~52hz, I'm not sure if its the best idea to extend it using eq, though the xmax allows it vs finding a woofer that has an f3 of ~30hz like the 2215ND for example.
I don't know if anyone here has any experience of fidelity of bass when dealing with such a situation. The natural f3 of the dual 15M is ~52hz, I'm not sure if its the best idea to extend it using eq, though the xmax allows it vs finding a woofer that has an f3 of ~30hz like the 2215ND for example.
This Faital LTH142 (clone) is a very cheap alternative.
It's an elliptical Tractrix and could presumably be used from 700Hz, preferably 800Hz.
It's used in the Unison Research Max 2. In the prototype phase the XT1464 and XR1464 were tested, but eventually the LTH142 was chosen.
Drivers are 18Sound.
This thing is supposed to go down to 30Hz, but the driver's Fs (39Hz), cab size and tuning of the port doesn't allow much to happen below 40Hz.
It's an elliptical Tractrix and could presumably be used from 700Hz, preferably 800Hz.
It's used in the Unison Research Max 2. In the prototype phase the XT1464 and XR1464 were tested, but eventually the LTH142 was chosen.
Drivers are 18Sound.
This thing is supposed to go down to 30Hz, but the driver's Fs (39Hz), cab size and tuning of the port doesn't allow much to happen below 40Hz.
Last edited:
1.5 isn't much bigger than 1.4". If desired, or necessary you could mill/drill the entrance.
I guess it depends on the cabinet vs. the driver's specs (X-max/mech mostly) and the SPL you require. Usually, for non PA applications, it's not an issue.
I question that method, just because I've heard in repetition; cutting is always better than boosting, for several different reasons. Its true within sound design and room correction. With room correction, sharp boost can sound un-natural.
As I research drivers it might be of interest to someone that the FaitalPRO 15FH500 16Ω is the only driver I've found that models similar to the 2216nd, though its group delay is worse by a few points and the excursion is greater per volume as well, it does have an f3 (28)slightly lower than the JBL woofer(32).
I'm going to have to investigate the specs of the horn, cutoff and dispersion wise.
As I research drivers it might be of interest to someone that the FaitalPRO 15FH500 16Ω is the only driver I've found that models similar to the 2216nd, though its group delay is worse by a few points and the excursion is greater per volume as well, it does have an f3 (28)slightly lower than the JBL woofer(32).
I'm going to have to investigate the specs of the horn, cutoff and dispersion wise.
Last edited:
Add the Eminence KL3015CX-8 to the list of 2216nd look-a-likes. Wow this driver is pretty damn good. All modeled measurements are about identical. A little light on the BL but everything on this one looks great.
And then enters the FaitalPRO 15FH520 8Ω, same boat as last driver, slightly higher f3 (37) but even less excursion as the Jbl woofer. So two of these would be a grrrreat pair. The Eminence requires a large 10cuft box but the Faital needs only a 5.
And then enters the FaitalPRO 15FH520 8Ω, same boat as last driver, slightly higher f3 (37) but even less excursion as the Jbl woofer. So two of these would be a grrrreat pair. The Eminence requires a large 10cuft box but the Faital needs only a 5.
Last edited:
I also have the same goal for a speaker as you, so I am watching this thread closely. Currently thinking about a two way with the 15PR400, HF146 and LTH142 in a 200 litre netto box tuned to 35hz, basically some kind of mixup of the Cornscala D and the Calpamos. 
Currently looking at something like this:
Currently looking at something like this:
I'm trying to be as critical as possible for my woofer selection. Though I usually screen out woofers that require 283 liters for one driver. I've been using the JBL 2216nd as a reference point of max allowable excursion, since the m2 has set the bar for IMD expectations for a 2 way, which is a direct correlation to the amount of excursion, as I see it. The 15FH500 16Ω is pretty great, for a single driver cab, 10cuft enclosure. Has a low f3, excursion is right in there with the rest I consider acceptable, when forced to flat signal. Also the only 16ohm driver in the group, if you are into that kind of thing. Has one of the the best bl to mms ratio but the le is 2....
Right now I am kinda focused on the idea of frequency extension via enclosure vs eq. I like the AE15M if eq extension is an acceptable method for great accuracy. it has the lowest mms, while being able to perform the task specs (30hz@116db while remaining linear). The 15FH520 8Ω is probably the all around champ ,f3-38hz, low Le, 5cu ft per driver, it just has a lower bl to mms ratio.....which to say some, means nothing at all.
Right now I am kinda focused on the idea of frequency extension via enclosure vs eq. I like the AE15M if eq extension is an acceptable method for great accuracy. it has the lowest mms, while being able to perform the task specs (30hz@116db while remaining linear). The 15FH520 8Ω is probably the all around champ ,f3-38hz, low Le, 5cu ft per driver, it just has a lower bl to mms ratio.....which to say some, means nothing at all.
Last edited:
