I bought a LMS-r 12" and expect that it will be quite a sound quality unit eventually. Right now what I hear is really deep with insane power handling. I have had a number of subs and this is by far the best combo of SPL and low frequency grunt unit I've had so far but I wasnt looking for that. The detail/accuracy though isn't really that great. I assume its due to a stiff new cone that will need to break in and loosen up so the motor can move the cone easier.
Does anyone have any input as to how long it took for theirs to start to settle in and show off the strong SQ qualities? I was concerned about the high MMS but they had a great following. I'd give up SPL for quality. Other metal cone 12's were more detailed in this same application but its too early to tell. Its in a slightly overdamped 2 cubic foot box ported to 25hz, same amp, same electronics across the board.
Anyone have any break in observations?
Update for those who didnt read through this thread:
The 2.05 cube box with a 25hz tuning was really bad sounding. Its just an average EBS alignment and had plodding flat undetailed sound in my truck. I reduced box volume to 1.7 cubes and tuned to 27hz and the group delay dropped and the sound was very detailed as what I was looking for. I suspect that a 1.4 cube box tuned to 27 would be the best overall for -3db point, group delay, and SQ all in one. It only loses 3hz in extension but group delay fell from 31 to 23ms. The reduction of air makes it react much faster to music. I was ready to send it back but its exactly what I wanted now with the added benefit that I lost nothing in deep bass and SPL. Slight changes in specs of your box make all the differenc in the world.
Does anyone have any input as to how long it took for theirs to start to settle in and show off the strong SQ qualities? I was concerned about the high MMS but they had a great following. I'd give up SPL for quality. Other metal cone 12's were more detailed in this same application but its too early to tell. Its in a slightly overdamped 2 cubic foot box ported to 25hz, same amp, same electronics across the board.
Anyone have any break in observations?
Update for those who didnt read through this thread:
The 2.05 cube box with a 25hz tuning was really bad sounding. Its just an average EBS alignment and had plodding flat undetailed sound in my truck. I reduced box volume to 1.7 cubes and tuned to 27hz and the group delay dropped and the sound was very detailed as what I was looking for. I suspect that a 1.4 cube box tuned to 27 would be the best overall for -3db point, group delay, and SQ all in one. It only loses 3hz in extension but group delay fell from 31 to 23ms. The reduction of air makes it react much faster to music. I was ready to send it back but its exactly what I wanted now with the added benefit that I lost nothing in deep bass and SPL. Slight changes in specs of your box make all the differenc in the world.
Last edited:
You could hit it with brown noise for 48 hours, if the neighbors permit it. 
Alternatively you could use pink noise and put a heavy iron core inductor in series with the driver (about 4mH).
About a hundred Watts max if you don't want to cook the voice coil.
Alternatively you could use pink noise and put a heavy iron core inductor in series with the driver (about 4mH).
About a hundred Watts max if you don't want to cook the voice coil.
Hi,
I´m very confident with the TCs. They are outstanding drivers regarding the combination of weight and slam on one hand and low level resolution on the other hand. Instead of break-In I´d say that the casing, the alignment or maybe positioning are responsible for sub-optimum sound.
If SPL were my sole aim, I´d probabely also opt for Bassfreflex. If it were for best quality/accuracy at sufficiently high SPL I´d put the driver in a closed box. Since for the most a subwoofer works under pressure chamber conditions where the amplitude response of the room and the -12dB/oct curve of a CB sub counter each other, the needed amount of LF-equalizing remains low and efficiency is high.
I never came across a BR-subwoofer that could play as exact as a CB- or MFB-sub, the problem getting worse with every Hz of lower alignment of the BR.
The TCs can perform extremely high excursions and their parameter set is optimized for small casings. A such their moving masses are unusually high.
I was also conerned about those high masses before, because I learned lowmass-school. But I had to change my opinion on first listening. The low level resolution of the TCs sets them far apart from other clunky high-mass car-audio drivers which usually can just put out a single ´boom´ and need hundreds of watts of input knocking at their connectors to realize some music is at the front door asking in. I call such drivers mud-pusher
The TCs certainly look like such, but sonically they most defintely are not.
They require really stiff, strong casings, especially with small volume CBs.
I even tend to say, that wooden casings may not be the path to Endor.
Rather try metal, stone, concrete or similar ´exotics´. It´d be also good to mount two drivers in push-pull opposing positions to cancel the mechanical impulses.
As for break-in, let the drivers run freeair. Working as dipole the SPL at very low frequencies is low, so You won´t harm neighbours (<20Hz over night). Second the wattage needed for high excursions remains low or in opposite, the required high excursions are reached at already low input levels. I use repeating sine shaped bursts of very low and infrasonic frequencies over a 24h-48h period. I´ve seen parameter changes uf up to 20% over the break-In period, but not with the TCs. They hardly changed at all.
jauu
Calvin
I´m very confident with the TCs. They are outstanding drivers regarding the combination of weight and slam on one hand and low level resolution on the other hand. Instead of break-In I´d say that the casing, the alignment or maybe positioning are responsible for sub-optimum sound.
If SPL were my sole aim, I´d probabely also opt for Bassfreflex. If it were for best quality/accuracy at sufficiently high SPL I´d put the driver in a closed box. Since for the most a subwoofer works under pressure chamber conditions where the amplitude response of the room and the -12dB/oct curve of a CB sub counter each other, the needed amount of LF-equalizing remains low and efficiency is high.
I never came across a BR-subwoofer that could play as exact as a CB- or MFB-sub, the problem getting worse with every Hz of lower alignment of the BR.
The TCs can perform extremely high excursions and their parameter set is optimized for small casings. A such their moving masses are unusually high.
I was also conerned about those high masses before, because I learned lowmass-school. But I had to change my opinion on first listening. The low level resolution of the TCs sets them far apart from other clunky high-mass car-audio drivers which usually can just put out a single ´boom´ and need hundreds of watts of input knocking at their connectors to realize some music is at the front door asking in. I call such drivers mud-pusher
The TCs certainly look like such, but sonically they most defintely are not.
They require really stiff, strong casings, especially with small volume CBs.
I even tend to say, that wooden casings may not be the path to Endor.
Rather try metal, stone, concrete or similar ´exotics´. It´d be also good to mount two drivers in push-pull opposing positions to cancel the mechanical impulses.
As for break-in, let the drivers run freeair. Working as dipole the SPL at very low frequencies is low, so You won´t harm neighbours (<20Hz over night). Second the wattage needed for high excursions remains low or in opposite, the required high excursions are reached at already low input levels. I use repeating sine shaped bursts of very low and infrasonic frequencies over a 24h-48h period. I´ve seen parameter changes uf up to 20% over the break-In period, but not with the TCs. They hardly changed at all.
jauu
Calvin
Last edited:
Are you saying it didnt change the sound after break in? If thats the case, it goes back to parts express. Low level detail isnt what I'm hearing. The type of box is what I'm using regardless what sub I own. If its not going to work, I'll try something else.
There are three variables in this situation that contribute to SQ,
#1 The enclosure
#2 The vehicle/room
#3 The TC sounds driver
Without the addressing of each individually, then as a whole, your bound to be disappointed with whatever sub you do end up choosing. 90% of all bad sound quality in car audio is due to bad box/enclosure design, mismatch of enclosure to cars resonances, and really bad tuning and very rarely the sub driver itself. If your not willing to build an enclosure that is optimized for the TC driver, and designed to work well with your vehicles/rooms cabin/room resonances then I'm afraid your S.O.L. and will find most subs lacking in the SQ dept.
Solutions are not as easy as "I'll try something else" when it comes to the science of loudspeaker design, sometimes you have to bend and attack the real problem before accepting defeat.
I installed an TC epic 12" in my good friends Civic, based on cabin gain, cabin size and with a reasonable tuning of the box we had a system that is very dynamic, loud, articulate and quarter panel pounding. ended up being a 2cubed slot loaded design tuned to about 35hz. In car response is quite good into the 20's with more than enough output to serve most people. He is happy needless to say.
Don't give up so easy on the TC driver, if your not willing to bend to improve performance your not giving one hell of a good driver it's fair chance. Just my .02$
#1 The enclosure
#2 The vehicle/room
#3 The TC sounds driver
Without the addressing of each individually, then as a whole, your bound to be disappointed with whatever sub you do end up choosing. 90% of all bad sound quality in car audio is due to bad box/enclosure design, mismatch of enclosure to cars resonances, and really bad tuning and very rarely the sub driver itself. If your not willing to build an enclosure that is optimized for the TC driver, and designed to work well with your vehicles/rooms cabin/room resonances then I'm afraid your S.O.L. and will find most subs lacking in the SQ dept.
Solutions are not as easy as "I'll try something else" when it comes to the science of loudspeaker design, sometimes you have to bend and attack the real problem before accepting defeat.
I installed an TC epic 12" in my good friends Civic, based on cabin gain, cabin size and with a reasonable tuning of the box we had a system that is very dynamic, loud, articulate and quarter panel pounding. ended up being a 2cubed slot loaded design tuned to about 35hz. In car response is quite good into the 20's with more than enough output to serve most people. He is happy needless to say.
Don't give up so easy on the TC driver, if your not willing to bend to improve performance your not giving one hell of a good driver it's fair chance. Just my .02$
Hi,
I regard it as a positive sign, if parameters don´t change much compared against the values right out of the cartonage. Its a sign that the driver has already had its break-in period.
After TCs DS a 2cft casing tuned to 25-28hz should be ok, if the coild are connected in series, for 4-Ohm loading. How did You wire the coils?
jauu
Calvin
I regard it as a positive sign, if parameters don´t change much compared against the values right out of the cartonage. Its a sign that the driver has already had its break-in period.
After TCs DS a 2cft casing tuned to 25-28hz should be ok, if the coild are connected in series, for 4-Ohm loading. How did You wire the coils?
Exactly, right to the point.
jauu
Calvin
Hi, great points you bring up.
I guess a little more info would help. This is the box that was built for the automotive application although I had it in my house all day today to compare it to my many other projects.
Its a 2.2 cubic foot box, but by putting in sealed cubes to reduce net internal volume, I can reduce it to 1.75 but I havent tried anything other that the current 2.05 cubic foot net set-up. The box is heavily braced and I can assure you its perfectly sealed. The vent is 13 x 2" and 47" long (48 net with the sidewall contributing another inch). As I lower internal volume the tuning moves up slightly due to the fixed nature of the vent length. I build two dozen boxes a year from mini-monitors to 400lb subs. IE: I'm not a newbie.
The applications I used prior were an aluminum cone 10" with a 14mm Xmax and Bl of 14. MMS was 136g. It was clearly more detailed. Would a move to the scan speak 10" that is similar to this be a better SQ? Other drivers were 10's and 12's from infinity to alpine. All were ported max flat alignments using the same equipment inside and outside the house.
In my home theater, the detail seemed much better. Is it possibly a EQ issue in the car just making it sound bloated? I will try using my 1/3 octave Behringer EQ/rta on it this week.
It did lossen up a bit but the result was an astonishing increase with how deep it can play. Individual bass notes seem blurred in the mix still.
Would a drop in box volume and rise in tuning frequency make it overcome the air load behind it more? I had heard the extended bass shelf alignments like this are less detailed. Max flat is 1.75 cubes tuned to about 26hz. Im at 2.05 tuned to about 24. 15% less air in the box may make the cone respond faster. I'm thinking it must have a subjective effect.
Last edited:
Hi,
I regard it as a positive sign, if parameters don´t change much compared against the values right out of the cartonage. Its a sign that the driver has already had its break-in period.
After TCs DS a 2cft casing tuned to 25-28hz should be ok, if the coild are connected in series, for 4-Ohm loading. How did You wire the coils?
Exactly, right to the point.
jauu
Calvin
I always run as high in impedance as I can so the amp has max damping factor. In my house thats a Peaver CS4080hz in stereo mode one channel driving the 4ohm load is 2400 watts. In my car its a Rockford Fosgate 4000.1BD which is 1500 watts into a 4 ohm load. Although its stable for 1 ohm loads at 4000watts, it wouldnt sound good. I usually run 4-8 on it for the best sound quality. My typical home system is two LMSr 15's per side in series for 8 ohms with each Peavey CS4080hz running bridged for 4080 watts. Yes sealed may sound different but I'm comparing other ported 10's and 12's to this ported 12" in the same environment with the same equipment.
The home subs flank my 16 foot screen but its for theater use and not really for music so its a tough comparison. I didnt buy the LMSr15's expecting quality with a heavy cone like that with the same motor as the TC 12" runs. Obviously, the 12 has to be better suited to quality with the same motor and less MMS...no?
Last edited:
Or I can return to a replacement that worked in the last sub that I blew up. I went beefier to avoid the cost from 'accidents'. If one sub in a ported box can sound detailed, then ported boxes can hit what I'm looking for. If this one doesnt sound as good ported that doesnt make ported boxes Low-fi, it means this one doesnt do what I need.
For the record, I dont see how a 12db drop in low bass requiring big EQ resulting in big distortion is better SQ. I tried sealed box alignments and hear nothing I like.
Anyway, I can try changing internal volume and a higher tuning frequency. There is so much more adjustment before I give up on what is likely the best output for deep bass I've had in a 12". It would be nice to have it all.
MMs 107 grms.
Seas L26ROY 10" Subwoofer
Seas L26ROY 10" Subwoofer
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
If you use lots of EQ on a sealed box to bring up the low end, you're missing the whole point of alignment/sizing. You select the driver and build the box size so that the natural roll off gives you the response you want.
Most people don't want 200l boxes in their room and if I remember the 12 LMSR works well in a small sealed box.
The reason mentioned a 1000w amp do it can handle the EQ.
If this is indeed for automotive use then I'd say run a few sweeps in your car, measure, and find out where the peaks and nulls are. Something tells me this is an artifact of the cabin of your car and cabinet tuning and not of the driver.
Lets also get straight that not all cars sound good with a ported box. Example... my friend wanted a ported box in his van, cabin gain made this optimally loaded driver/cab combo sound like *** (literally farted) so I designed a T-line that was slightly larger than the ported but offered better detail and control. Additionally we measured the resonances of the inside of the van and found that if we tuned the cabinet to "optimal" tuning the van had huge bumps in response from 20-45 hz resulting in a boomy fart like sound (typical booming kids type single note sounds). Once we built the T-line and tuned it to 35hz rather than the 25 or so before it changed things drastically. Not all boxes are created equal in car audio without doubt, as no two cars cabins are the same you kind of have to consider more 'environment" than science at this point.
One thing I've learned about car audio applications is that Optimal tuning for that driver may not be optimal in car due to a very low tuning frequency, this due to cabin gain artifacts in general. Most "KIDS" feel lower tuning will get them better low end and bragging rights (dude it's tuned to 18Hz), when all it gets them is muddy sound without detail... or Quarter panel farts!!
My opinion is that your cabinet in car is creating the same artifact in your current cabinet within the confines of your cars system. Try, if your willing, to build a slightly higher tuned box 35-40hz, try a t-line even.
Remember even if you tune with a natural 6-12dB rolloff below port tuning the cars gain will make up for the rolloff most times.
Once again I doubt the TC sounds driver is at fault here...
Lets also get straight that not all cars sound good with a ported box. Example... my friend wanted a ported box in his van, cabin gain made this optimally loaded driver/cab combo sound like *** (literally farted) so I designed a T-line that was slightly larger than the ported but offered better detail and control. Additionally we measured the resonances of the inside of the van and found that if we tuned the cabinet to "optimal" tuning the van had huge bumps in response from 20-45 hz resulting in a boomy fart like sound (typical booming kids type single note sounds). Once we built the T-line and tuned it to 35hz rather than the 25 or so before it changed things drastically. Not all boxes are created equal in car audio without doubt, as no two cars cabins are the same you kind of have to consider more 'environment" than science at this point.
One thing I've learned about car audio applications is that Optimal tuning for that driver may not be optimal in car due to a very low tuning frequency, this due to cabin gain artifacts in general. Most "KIDS" feel lower tuning will get them better low end and bragging rights (dude it's tuned to 18Hz), when all it gets them is muddy sound without detail... or Quarter panel farts!!
My opinion is that your cabinet in car is creating the same artifact in your current cabinet within the confines of your cars system. Try, if your willing, to build a slightly higher tuned box 35-40hz, try a t-line even.
Remember even if you tune with a natural 6-12dB rolloff below port tuning the cars gain will make up for the rolloff most times.
Once again I doubt the TC sounds driver is at fault here...
As stated, this ported alignment is repacing a ported alignment. If the other ported subs had the detail then its not the fact that this sub is ported that is the issue. I also stated that I brought the sub into my house yesterday all day for use indoors to assess it in a non-car environment. I guess many people only read the first post and not the follow up which is ok.
I am changing the internal volume and tuning today to see where it lands me. 1.85 cubes ported to 26.5 decreases group delay and may improve things. I will also try a sealed box regardless so I know first hand what the differences are other than a drop of 8db drop at 30hz.
I think things work both ways. People read things on the internet and go with ported or sealed based on what they read and rarely try another alignment. I tried ported and sealed on the two prior subs and ported was better for me both times. Now how many sealed fans try a ported box? I doubt many do because they believe sealed sounds better but they dont know first hand. I will post pics of the sealed box I will build for it today. Any suggestions for size or should I just go .9 cubes net as WINisd says is a .707 alignment?
Last edited:
It has limited DSP in the head unit.
Yes, there were numerous ported boxes in this truck and all but an alpine 15 ported sounded better. Run a ported simulation on this 12" and compare the group delay to a ported 10" Scan Speak L26roy. Maybe it has to be run sealed for SQ............so........
I built a sealed box today for it. Its already glued together. Tomorrow I router the edges and put it in the truck. It has a 1.2 cube net internal volume which I will change by adding blocks in to run it between .9 cubes to 1.2 leaving no stone unturned. I expect a big drop in ultimate SPL output at 25hz (7db) and it will be faster as the group delay drops big time. It models 44HZ as its -3db point using the specs DATAbass measured for the driver....not so impressive....and -11.2 at the point my current box is -3db at (23hz). If I was willing to give up the low end SPL, then I could have just used a 106grm cone 10" to start with.
I am open to the possibility that this sub has to be used sealed for SQ so I'm trying it but that mindset could have been used for every other ported sub I've had in my truck. I didnt have to use them sealed because they didnt have one note bass in a ported application.
If you want loud deep bass, the TC is built for it and wins all the trophys. If it has to go in a sealed box to not have one note bass and loses the SPL and 7db at 25hz, I could have had that for 1/2 the money.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.