Can anyone recommend an amp the will drive 2 of these tham15s with the right power? I went with the B&C driver per his design spec, and they seem very hungry.
I just tried a qsc 1450 bridged at @8Ohm
Into one cab and it clipped like hell.
Im open to behringer :/ or other off brands in order at stay in budget, (which is $500) and hopefully on the used market.
I just tried a qsc 1450 bridged at @8Ohm
Into one cab and it clipped like hell.
Im open to behringer :/ or other off brands in order at stay in budget, (which is $500) and hopefully on the used market.
RMX1450 is listed as 800-900W into 8ohm when bridged. Perhaps: https://www.admarksound.com/power-a...0-class-d-rack-power-amplifier-2-channel.html hard to get a significant increase in output power at that budget. Each doubling of output power is ideally +3dB acoustic output, in bass frequencies ~+6dB will be perceived as twice as loud. I would look for ~2kW/channel/8ohm amplifiers for the 15TBX100. The best way (if possible) to increase output is to increase the number of cabinets (+6dB per doubling assuming each box is getting the same power so total electrical power input has doubled) as this avoids increasing losses and THD.
Any amp can be driven to clipping or limiting...
As I recall, you plan to run off one 20amp 120vAC circuit, the class A/B QSC RMX1450 has only about 43% thermal efficiency- more than half the power drawn from the outlet is turned into heat.
Class D amps range from ~80% to above 90% thermal efficiency, potentially twice as much power to the speakers from the same circuit.
The Behringer NU-6000 or NX-6000, bridged NU4-6000 or NX4-6000 can provide enough clean output to roast your B&C drivers within your budget.
Last edited:
weltersys
Thanks. I always thought the big copper and caps spoke to reliability and quality, but I guess thats pretty dated, and class D is the new way to go.Ok .. Ill go the behinger route, but it seems like folks are saying that they dont output per spec.. Id like to run them at 1400w (not that I have a way of testing and setting that) But hopping with a limiter and some trial and error I can get close with NU6000.
Also FYI I bought the 8ohm version of the B&C's ..wishing that I didnt
kipman725
curious what the pricing is on thoes admark Chinese amps?
Last edited:
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Admark-K30-digital-amplifier_1600166669749.html 873usd with shipping, probobly tax on top of that depending on your country.
I'm curious... have you made any progress on your build, and found any other driver options in Australia?
I've been told that Wagner have a significant "trade discount" available if you set up an account, since their RRPs aren't as compelling as they could be...
(and is your 2026 referring to Bondi's postcode?)
Hello!
I have been searching for information about different DIY speakers and I decided to go for the THAM 15. I am now in the process of building two THAM 15 mk2 with B&C 15TBX100 drivers. I have two amps Yamaha P7000S that produces 2000 W each in bridge mode (8 ohms). In 4 Ohm bridge mode they will give 3200 W each.
I will use the THAMs together with my RCF NXL 24-A tops.
https://www.rcf.it/en/products/product-detail/nxl-24-a
Now to my question:
Will one THAM 15 (each with amp 2000 W) per side be enough to match my tops? Or do I need two (amped by 3200 W) per side?
Greatful for advice!
I have been searching for information about different DIY speakers and I decided to go for the THAM 15. I am now in the process of building two THAM 15 mk2 with B&C 15TBX100 drivers. I have two amps Yamaha P7000S that produces 2000 W each in bridge mode (8 ohms). In 4 Ohm bridge mode they will give 3200 W each.
I will use the THAMs together with my RCF NXL 24-A tops.
https://www.rcf.it/en/products/product-detail/nxl-24-a
Now to my question:
Will one THAM 15 (each with amp 2000 W) per side be enough to match my tops? Or do I need two (amped by 3200 W) per side?
Greatful for advice!
Last edited:
One Tham15 has around 6dB more clean output potential than one RCF NXL 24-A in the 100Hz range, so would more than "match".
That said, many prefer to have +10dB or more <100Hz output, in which case a 2/1 ratio would be required.
Thanks for your rapid reply
. Then i suppose I will be fine with one THAM per side but that two wouldn’t hurt. How large audience do you think i can cover with 1/1 ratio indoor and outdoor (primarily rock music).
By the way, RCF recommends the SUB 8004 for my tops but it is WAY over my budget (that’s why i went for the THAM’s). How would you say the output of a THAM 15 is compared to the 8004? Of course the 8004 plays deeper because of the 18” driver but how about the SPL?Thanks for your rapid reply
The THAM15 with B&C 15TBX100 probably has a bit more output than the SUB 8004 in it's pass band.
"Coverage" is simply a matter of using the inverse distance law, sound drops at 6dB each doubling of distance, -20 dB at 10meters from one meter outdoors.
If you are happy with the output of a pair of subs at 10 meters, another pair will make you about that happy at 20 meters.
Indoors, all depends on the room modes.
"Coverage" is simply a matter of using the inverse distance law, sound drops at 6dB each doubling of distance, -20 dB at 10meters from one meter outdoors.
If you are happy with the output of a pair of subs at 10 meters, another pair will make you about that happy at 20 meters.
Indoors, all depends on the room modes.
Is the reason this looks disproportional towards the base frequencies due to wave length actually falling into the
1
2
4
8
16m
as
-6
-12
-24
-48
-96 dB
as a wave length at the bottom of bandwidth as compared to the top of bandwidth in 3×1/4
Would be 21.6, 28.8 and 43.2 and 86.4 for example. 100,200,300,400cm at 345.6 m/sec(8/2.54 x 360 exactly, btw how much more useful standard and 344 or 343.7 or whatever)
but when expanding bandwidth in quarter wave enclosures with another resonator upstream of a fourth order TL or anywhere but obviously when using the rear output in series or parallel has a three to one aspect to it …
you could see this in roar or in the keystone layouts if you just strip them down to plain simple pipe segments instead of how their foldd or how they’re flared etc…
In the same way you can look at TL in three Specific segments and do not flare or tweak them, as that will screw all the results up and blur everything no matter what to compare with or use a standard to see with. You can change the cross-sectional area within reason at one location and one location only.. anti-node of the harmonic of the quarter wave already in use. That’s because (strange as it seems) it has it’s sitting at its own version of the golden ratio already.
ultimately everything lines up to the same frequencies if exposing this perfect alignment(it’s using one for a reference to everything already)
3.375,6.75,13.5,27,54,108,216,432,864,1728,3456,6912,13824,27648,55296.
I Think we all have slowly evokved to take that for granite what it actually is..?
even worse we wanna argue instead of looking deeper into it for whatever reason because we’re not comparing apples to apples no matter what unless we try to?
But there’s something in that no matter what and for whatever reason it’s been missed by everyone it seems
