Hope I am not derailing your thread mate...
I am working on some simulations, using a simulator tool I got from Norwegian Tom Helgesen who once ran Embla Audio.
That tool is quite simple and show simulated in room response based on subwoofer position (Anechoic, normal, intermediate, corner and any positions in between those), taking into account room gain. Guess it' poddiblr to get a pretty good idea of what and how much peq is required, as well as power requirements and SPL at xmax.
Potential drivers for hexagon 6 driver setup
- Kravchenko KA-XBL-8NEO
- Mivoc AWM 124
- SB Acoustics 10 SB29SWNRX-S75-6
- ScanSpeak 22W/4851T
- ScanSpeak 28W/4878-T01
- ScanSpeak 32W/4878-T11
- Tang Band W8-1363SB
- Tang Band W8-740P
- Morel TiCW 958Ft
- Morel TiCW 1058Ft
Those following seem to require too large cabinets to be workable, think I need way more than 200 liters, and the calculator can only manage up to 150 liters, which I believe is more than I could possibly fit anyways.
- ScanSpeak 26W/4867T00
- ScanSpeak 26W/8861T00
- ScanSpeak 26w/8867t00
My thinking goes towards Morel TiCW or ScanSpeak 28W or 32W, guess they are in a league of their own, definitly also when it comes to price
The Scan Speak 32W is €750 per driver
Details are for another thread
I am working on some simulations, using a simulator tool I got from Norwegian Tom Helgesen who once ran Embla Audio.
That tool is quite simple and show simulated in room response based on subwoofer position (Anechoic, normal, intermediate, corner and any positions in between those), taking into account room gain. Guess it' poddiblr to get a pretty good idea of what and how much peq is required, as well as power requirements and SPL at xmax.
Potential drivers for hexagon 6 driver setup
- Kravchenko KA-XBL-8NEO
- Mivoc AWM 124
- SB Acoustics 10 SB29SWNRX-S75-6
- ScanSpeak 22W/4851T
- ScanSpeak 28W/4878-T01
- ScanSpeak 32W/4878-T11
- Tang Band W8-1363SB
- Tang Band W8-740P
- Morel TiCW 958Ft
- Morel TiCW 1058Ft
Those following seem to require too large cabinets to be workable, think I need way more than 200 liters, and the calculator can only manage up to 150 liters, which I believe is more than I could possibly fit anyways.
- ScanSpeak 26W/4867T00
- ScanSpeak 26W/8861T00
- ScanSpeak 26w/8867t00
My thinking goes towards Morel TiCW or ScanSpeak 28W or 32W, guess they are in a league of their own, definitly also when it comes to price
The Scan Speak 32W is €750 per driver
Details are for another thread
Last edited:
Looking forward to your thread Haraldo. I wish I were in a position to pursue an over the top subwoofer system.
In the meantime, I have another driver candidate for you with 18mm xmax and claimed 2.5% THD at the limit:
SHOP | css-audio
My very first DIY subwoofer used these and I can attest to their smoothness. Probably don't meet your QTC requirement but as has been said, you can equalize around that at the cost of higher amplifier power.
It also occurred to me that there is another, simpler force cancellation configuration that fits in roughly the same footprint - up and down firing. In the same diameter required to splay 3 10" woofers at 120 degree pitch, you likely can fit true 18" subwoofers, which can be obtained with ungodly amounts of excursion. That would likely be the winner on a pure volume displacement basis.
If you really want to go overboard, take a look at this 11" sub with 38 mm Xmax and .5 cu.ft. recommended box size:
HST-11 mkII 11″ Subwoofer – Stereo Integrity
or make your hexagon large enough for a pair of their 24" drivers!!!
In the meantime, I have another driver candidate for you with 18mm xmax and claimed 2.5% THD at the limit:
SHOP | css-audio
My very first DIY subwoofer used these and I can attest to their smoothness. Probably don't meet your QTC requirement but as has been said, you can equalize around that at the cost of higher amplifier power.
It also occurred to me that there is another, simpler force cancellation configuration that fits in roughly the same footprint - up and down firing. In the same diameter required to splay 3 10" woofers at 120 degree pitch, you likely can fit true 18" subwoofers, which can be obtained with ungodly amounts of excursion. That would likely be the winner on a pure volume displacement basis.
If you really want to go overboard, take a look at this 11" sub with 38 mm Xmax and .5 cu.ft. recommended box size:
HST-11 mkII 11″ Subwoofer – Stereo Integrity
or make your hexagon large enough for a pair of their 24" drivers!!!
That's crazy
I can't help thinking there must be a difference between excursion and area? All(?) the instruments (and other things for that matter) that produce low frequency sound are physically large, they don't move great distances on the whole.excursion and area are equally effective in creating SPL
but if you have large area/small excursion you have some control of dispersion, at least at the high end of the range and less potential doppler distortion.
I didn't recommend this driver, I merely pointed out its existence. I think its way too heavy for a 6 driver hexagon and its also very deep.
but if you have large area/small excursion you have some control of dispersion, at least at the high end of the range and less potential doppler distortion.
I didn't recommend this driver, I merely pointed out its existence. I think its way too heavy for a 6 driver hexagon and its also very deep.
I recently had long talks to Geir Fredriksen who is owner and chief designer og all loudspekars witin the Audio Insight and Adyton brands. Common theme is full range linesource and dipol ribbon linesource, as weel as very well regarded bass towers to mate with his line source spekers.
Geir is very clear that only really loghtweight woofers will mate properly to the extremely light cones that are in these designs and that anything that looks like a heavy subwoofer will compromise the bass, something he can easily point out and hear.
For that reason, Geir is only employing 8" and 10" woofers in his woofer towers, and it's not sub drivers but what clearly looks like customized Seas prestige woofers.
Very much looks like these ones, 4, 6 or 8 drivers in each tower
- Seas L22RN4X/P
- Seas L26RFX/P
I am not saying this is right or wrong, merely stating what one of the most regarded speaker designers over here is stating
I tried to get our of Geir what drivers he is using but of course he is not saying, only that it is custom drivers
I wasn't, however, able to make those fit to my concept .... yet .... but just thought it could be interesting for you guys to hear what a designer making woofer towers for line surces do....
This is woofer tower with 4 10" woofers on one side, this clearly looks like the 10" Seas Prestige
This is woofer tower with 3 10" woofers on each side, I have no idea which driver this could be, woofer matrial looks like Eton hexacon material maybe...
This is woofer tower with 6 8" woofers, this clearly looks like the 8" Seas Prestige
Geir is very clear that only really loghtweight woofers will mate properly to the extremely light cones that are in these designs and that anything that looks like a heavy subwoofer will compromise the bass, something he can easily point out and hear.
For that reason, Geir is only employing 8" and 10" woofers in his woofer towers, and it's not sub drivers but what clearly looks like customized Seas prestige woofers.
Very much looks like these ones, 4, 6 or 8 drivers in each tower
- Seas L22RN4X/P
- Seas L26RFX/P
I am not saying this is right or wrong, merely stating what one of the most regarded speaker designers over here is stating
I tried to get our of Geir what drivers he is using but of course he is not saying, only that it is custom drivers
I wasn't, however, able to make those fit to my concept .... yet .... but just thought it could be interesting for you guys to hear what a designer making woofer towers for line surces do....
This is woofer tower with 4 10" woofers on one side, this clearly looks like the 10" Seas Prestige
This is woofer tower with 3 10" woofers on each side, I have no idea which driver this could be, woofer matrial looks like Eton hexacon material maybe...
This is woofer tower with 6 8" woofers, this clearly looks like the 8" Seas Prestige
Last edited:
Love those pictures!
I'm for light weight cones too. I love their high efficiency Sometimes I need to be reminded about the other benefits. That dynamics argument can get controversial. Some say that all that's necessary for a heavy cone to keep up with a light cone is a bigger engine and amplifier. But damping factor figures into the equation and it can be compromised by speaker cable.
Still I might use heavy cone sub for bottom octave but not for an array that helps out my 2.5" driver line array at 100 Hz or higher.
I'm for light weight cones too. I love their high efficiency Sometimes I need to be reminded about the other benefits. That dynamics argument can get controversial. Some say that all that's necessary for a heavy cone to keep up with a light cone is a bigger engine and amplifier. But damping factor figures into the equation and it can be compromised by speaker cable.
Still I might use heavy cone sub for bottom octave but not for an array that helps out my 2.5" driver line array at 100 Hz or higher.
When I was looking for a sub, I figured I wanted a reasonably light cone too. That made most Dayton 12" drivers fall out of my scope.
The 32w has a mms of 150 gram, however the 30w does not seem that far off with it's slightly smaller cone that has a mms of 'only' 135 gram. That should relate well to cone area, right?
My arrays have a total of about 60 gram in mms (25 x 2,4 gram), I figured I should get away with about double that for a sub, seeing as it also has quite a different motor etc. The TG9 FD10-08 has about an equal mms with 2.5 gram.
A lot of light coned subs don't have an Fs as low as 19 Hz like the 30w does. Which would mean even more processing is needed to get output down low.
A 26w has 105 gram mms, not bad at all I'd say. Don't forget that an array of these is quite a bit different from a normal sealed box setup.
There is however another 26w, the 26W-4534 G00 that has less x-max, but an mms of only 52 gram! X-max is 6 mm, x-damage is double that at 12 mm. Fs = 23 Hz.
Sure you could move on to drivers that technically aren't subs, there should be a couple of models with light weight cones, but one thing is certain, the 32W does not fall in that category, even if it is one #@!! of a sub!
I'd still look for a 'lowish' Fs, as when it is put into a sealed box that will only move up. Linkwitz transform or similar EQ can work fine belos Fs, but with more "normal' drivers like the Seas, where do we start with the Fs? Roll pretty much off starts where the Fs lands so if you need EQ below Fs, you'd want it to start at a reasonably low Fs, right? If not, you are going to need a lot more EQ boost below Fs. Unless the driver is very efficient, most subs like the Scan Speak's are not.
The 32w has a mms of 150 gram, however the 30w does not seem that far off with it's slightly smaller cone that has a mms of 'only' 135 gram. That should relate well to cone area, right?
My arrays have a total of about 60 gram in mms (25 x 2,4 gram), I figured I should get away with about double that for a sub, seeing as it also has quite a different motor etc. The TG9 FD10-08 has about an equal mms with 2.5 gram.
A lot of light coned subs don't have an Fs as low as 19 Hz like the 30w does. Which would mean even more processing is needed to get output down low.
A 26w has 105 gram mms, not bad at all I'd say. Don't forget that an array of these is quite a bit different from a normal sealed box setup.
There is however another 26w, the 26W-4534 G00 that has less x-max, but an mms of only 52 gram! X-max is 6 mm, x-damage is double that at 12 mm. Fs = 23 Hz.
Sure you could move on to drivers that technically aren't subs, there should be a couple of models with light weight cones, but one thing is certain, the 32W does not fall in that category, even if it is one #@!! of a sub!
I'd still look for a 'lowish' Fs, as when it is put into a sealed box that will only move up. Linkwitz transform or similar EQ can work fine belos Fs, but with more "normal' drivers like the Seas, where do we start with the Fs? Roll pretty much off starts where the Fs lands so if you need EQ below Fs, you'd want it to start at a reasonably low Fs, right? If not, you are going to need a lot more EQ boost below Fs. Unless the driver is very efficient, most subs like the Scan Speak's are not.
Last edited:
I see the Seas Prestige 10" has an mms of 36,1 gram, Fs of 29 Hz and about the same cone area as the 26w (either version). Plus it still has about 7 mm (one way) x-max.
Slightly lighter, somewhat higher Fs, same sensitivity (2.83V, 1m). In the end I think it won't be that much different in needed overall boost, but they both would need boost.
One is paper, the other is Aluminium...
I'd sim both in an enclosure size you can live with (containing all 6 drivers). It is no coincidence that the Paradigm sub has a 4000 watt amp, they do use plenty of boost if you ask me. In this way "shaping" their own FR and probably boosting quite a bit below Fs.
P.s. I don't mind the derail, just as long as we do not end up in a discussion about Open Baffle vs Sealed etc.
I use sealed box for everything and have my reasons to do so. A discussion about this subject would be better somewhere else.
Your sub still has an Array theme and i think it's fun.
Slightly lighter, somewhat higher Fs, same sensitivity (2.83V, 1m). In the end I think it won't be that much different in needed overall boost, but they both would need boost.
One is paper, the other is Aluminium...
I'd sim both in an enclosure size you can live with (containing all 6 drivers). It is no coincidence that the Paradigm sub has a 4000 watt amp, they do use plenty of boost if you ask me. In this way "shaping" their own FR and probably boosting quite a bit below Fs.
P.s. I don't mind the derail, just as long as we do not end up in a discussion about Open Baffle vs Sealed etc.
I use sealed box for everything and have my reasons to do so. A discussion about this subject would be better somewhere else.
Your sub still has an Array theme and i think it's fun
.
Last edited:
90dB measurement isn't actually loud enough to see distortion. The D lines follow room ambient noise here. But yes it has so much cone area that distortion should't be any kind of problem.
About moving mass of subwoofers, I don't see it as a relevant parameter. High Xmax and cone area make the base. Amp power and eq/dsp take care of the rest.
The thing here is that we are not really looking at subwoofers, but woofers that also need to do the duty as subwoofers. When you need to support the tiny 3" fullrange drivers you need woofers that go pretty high up into the mid-bass, and then the "sluggyness" of a pretty heavy subwoofer membrane could probably make a signifcant difference....
You can hear that by the attack of a bass guitar loosing it's edge!
When I was at a recent demo of some linesource systems, they were used with the new rel S/812 subwoofers; However, the REL guy said that he can't cross the S/812 higher than 65Hz because of the heavy woofer driver (well, he didn't use those exact words but it's how I read it), so then we are looking into a two way woofer system with a REL S/812 serving up to 65 Hz and a smaller REL serving from 65Hz to around 150Hz... sounds like complete bollocks to me, honestly....
The designer of the fullrange line source speakers was comletely lost for words when it came to the setup of the woofer system but because of the fact that he was sin a customer facing setting he was keeping hos mouth shut generally....
So are we only looking into a thinking that the only thing that matters for a subwoofer/woofer system is max spl, and maximum output and distortion level?
I would like to play my lawyer joke and say: OBJECTION HONOUR!
What we need then is a system that can go all the way up to whatever frequency needed in order to meet the fullrange drivers and I guess for that we need fast, lightweight woofer cones
Last edited:
What is the thinking behind "fast" bass (the need for a light driver). Read the suggestion recently that it was important that the cone stops moving quickly, makes sense, but if it takes ~5 cycles to recognise a frequency (ie hear it?) does it also take the same length of time to realise it's stopped? Just a thought
Just a thought
What is the thinking behind "fast" bass (the need for a light driver). Read the suggestion recently that it was important that the cone stops moving quickly, makes sense, but if it takes ~5 cycles to recognise a frequency (ie hear it?) does it also take the same length of time to realise it's stopped?
Another thought. Isn't this all related to driver bandwidth? Or is that what you are implying?
... for that we need fast, lightweight woofer cones
Since transient response is directly related to frequency response and in order to have flat low frequency response in-room you need to deal with the modes.....which is a steady state response....I don't see how cone mass in isolation has much to do with bass perception.
Don't we have to take into account the motor AND mass and not simply mass in isolation, f=ma? Seems like mass in isolation is not the whole story especially when dealing with in-room bass response.
The 5 cycles was mentioned by Earl Geddes in respect to subwoofers and supposed directionality in a room, he commented that the wave had bounced around the room a few times before the pitch was perceived.
A week ago I was at my friend's place listening and measuring AE 18" IBHT subwoofer, Mms 250g IB18HT - Home Theater Infinite Baffle Woofer - Subwoofer
Nearfield response was flat 20-1500Hz! It sounded nice and clean without xo, powered by 1200W ICEpower module.
Nearfield response was flat 20-1500Hz! It sounded nice and clean without xo, powered by 1200W ICEpower module.
Last edited:
When I was at a recent demo of some linesource systems, they were used with the new rel S/812 subwoofers; However, the REL guy said that he can't cross the S/812 higher than 65Hz because of the heavy woofer driver (well, he didn't use those exact words but it's how I read it), so then we are looking into a two way woofer system with a REL S/812 serving up to 65 Hz and a smaller REL serving from 65Hz to around 150Hz... sounds like complete bollocks to me, honestly....
The designer of the fullrange line source speakers was comletely lost for words when it came to the setup of the woofer system but because of the fact that he was sin a customer facing setting he was keeping hos mouth shut generally....
So are we only looking into a thinking that the only thing that matters for a subwoofer/woofer system is max spl, and maximum output and distortion level?
I would like to play my lawyer joke and say: OBJECTION HONOUR!
What we need then is a system that can go all the way up to whatever frequency needed in order to meet the fullrange drivers and I guess for that we need fast, lightweight woofer cones
Well, it's pretty much impossible to learn much about the Rel driver. It's "long throw" is mentioned on a few sites as being 11.8". It's also a sub with a passive radiator of equal size. But I couldn't find much.
I still have a hard time believing subwoofer mms has anything to do with it but also that it has no meaning at all. A lighter subwoofer cone could have an easier job to run up higher in frequency.
But fast? 100 Hz is 100 Hz etc. You can't pay it faster or it would become 101 Hz (lol). What I do care about is a stiff enough cone to act as a piston at these frequencies.
If I could, I'd run a bass array, but that's not in the cards for me. So I will find out if I can get the subwoofers to integrate seamlessly. DSP will help, no doubt, but there is the line source being supported by a point source problem. Not sure yet how that will work out.
We have lots of people saying mms matters, even for subs, to keep up with speakers like arrays (or electrostats for that matter).
There are also a lot of others that say you can get equal results with higher mms drivers (at sub frequencies). The stronger motors will make up for it.
Drivers (not subwoofers) like the old Altec's are still very popular. Light weight cones in big sizes. How I would love to compare all of these in an anechoic space (with measurement gear) to really learn what the truth is.
In other words, I can't be sure (yet) which side is right. But if one is lusting after a 32w, the 30w and 26w (long throw shall I call them) are in the same league as far as mass to square size goes. The short throw 26W I mentioned earlier is much lighter. It still has an aluminium cone and I'd pick it over that 10" Seas for these duties.
Last edited:
It has a better (lower) mass / square cm size than the Scan Speak 32W. It only needs to move a fraction of what the 32W would for similar SPL.
I guess the beef would be with the smaller long throw drivers?