The TC2E-121 is a 'relative' compact 21" design (1183mm x 915m) Design with a Fb of 30hz. Made for the new eminence NSW6021, but the B&C 21SW12 will also work.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
USRF-obiwan: It is very nice box, but it is huge. I do not need 21“, nor 18“, if the power density is preserved. My bins are 240l/8.5cu.ft, and I would like to stay within that volume for new design. Could be even smaller, but double the bins. To this day, it seems that overconstrained, nearly opressed 21“ does much better job in this volume, than any other 12“-15“-18" design in that volume, if you want that 35-30Hz extension. That is the only reason I have 21“s. What these HOQW designs transform in their horns and resonators and load the speaker cone with it, the 21“ just stupidly out-wobbles by itself. I do not want that, but it seems that it is what it is, so I have no option to jump on more modern designs, as it doesn't bring me more performance. Or it seems... Most people cannot wrap their head around that, And some don't even look, cuz it's a bassreflex. 
I have other projects going, so I will build some paraflex bins anyway, but my setup seems to be standing as is, for these reasons.
I have other projects going, so I will build some paraflex bins anyway, but my setup seems to be standing as is, for these reasons.
Yes of course Crashpc, there is no free lunch. It all depends on the personal requirements. the paraflex subs are what they are. Other design approaches are there to explore, even if they are bassreflex, horns, hybrids, etc. And for us it's a good time to explore new possibilities with all the new high performance drivers we can get now. Let me know if you have have any designs you want me too build and test.
There must be something to it, no? People hate food for the taste, people hate other people for looks, actions or opinions, nobody hates a ported box for no reason at all.
Distortion. If a speaker moves, it distorts. BP4's and BP6's lower the distortion levels. I can't stand sealed and BR enclosures.
Circlomanen: That's all jokes and fun, but I'm triggered with my ported bins.
I'm still looking for different/higher order designs, but there seems to be nothing better in 220-240l box volume with good extension down to 35-30Hz.
Let me/help me get rid of it with some awesome compact design!
Straight flare TH (TQWT or TQWP) and negative flare TH (T-TQWT or T-TQWP) will give you extension and smaller enclosures. However, you lose efficiency over a positive flare TH.
Hoffman's Law = loud, low, & small...pick 2 of the 3.
USRF-obiwan: It is very nice box, but it is huge. I do not need 21“, nor 18“, if the power density is preserved. My bins are 240l/8.5cu.ft, and I would like to stay within that volume for new design. Could be even smaller, but double the bins. To this day, it seems that overconstrained, nearly opressed 21“ does much better job in this volume, than any other 12“-15“-18" design in that volume, if you want that 35-30Hz extension. That is the only reason I have 21“s. What these HOQW designs transform in their horns and resonators and load the speaker cone with it, the 21“ just stupidly out-wobbles by itself. I do not want that, but it seems that it is what it is, so I have no option to jump on more modern designs, as it doesn't bring me more performance. Or it seems... Most people cannot wrap their head around that, And some don't even look, cuz it's a bassreflex.
I have other projects going, so I will build some paraflex bins anyway, but my setup seems to be standing as is, for these reasons.
Check out the Devastators on avsforum.com. Red Five has been squeezing smaller BP6P enclosures for 21's with high mid bass perfomance and low HT tuning.
USRFobiwan: Matthew just released C2-A golden formula sub for 18DS115. I'm about to try that. Thanks for help/offer. I am too proud to ask someone to build something for me. Have to do it myself, cuz we're manly men.
BP1Fanatic: very interesting! The port itself doesn't add terrible amount of distortion in BP designs? I now understand your approach. Has some merits. Yet Paraflex design also partially relies on quite great cone excursion. Should be same issue. I will look more into negative flare designs. Thanks for hints.
I know Hoffman's law, and I'm knowingly pushing it to the bitter and expensive edge.
Even mini version of the devastator is close to 2x the volume of my bins. That is too much. I have seen that someone around Ricci, or even he himself refined the approach, and made even smaller bin in very similar design (BP6).
Anyways I might end up with just more "18IPAL-ish" bins and drivers, or two M-force 22“s one day.
BP1Fanatic: very interesting! The port itself doesn't add terrible amount of distortion in BP designs? I now understand your approach. Has some merits. Yet Paraflex design also partially relies on quite great cone excursion. Should be same issue. I will look more into negative flare designs. Thanks for hints.
I know Hoffman's law, and I'm knowingly pushing it to the bitter and expensive edge.
Even mini version of the devastator is close to 2x the volume of my bins. That is too much. I have seen that someone around Ricci, or even he himself refined the approach, and made even smaller bin in very similar design (BP6).
Anyways I might end up with just more "18IPAL-ish" bins and drivers, or two M-force 22“s one day.
Last edited:
This has probably been mentioned somewhere in the thread, but what frequency response behavior can I expect when running these cabs in multiples, specifically the 1x18 Type C? Will it change the "elbow" around Fb? I heard somewhere that you can't expect the low end rolloff to change its shape when running tapped horns in multiples, even if simulations would suggest this is the case. I was wondering what kind of coupling behavior this design exhibits in general.
I'm strongly considering building three of the 1x18 Type C cabs.
I'm strongly considering building three of the 1x18 Type C cabs.
You will end up with the usual +-6dB (sensitivity + power). Besides that, the response will even out (more flat) when using multiples. Which actually could shift the F3 a bit. But fundamentaly you won't change the 'elbow" as you call it, or knee.
The Type-C is a proven one imho, could not go wrong with it, if you use decent drivers/amps/dsp.
The Type-C is a proven one imho, could not go wrong with it, if you use decent drivers/amps/dsp.
Classic Type-C is indeed a proven design, there are people that build more than one, up to 8 or more. Its a simple build and about 90x90x60cm, not much wood needed and with a good high BL driver will perform very well, in multiples you can't go wrong.
I recently did a test for the frequency response for the Paraflex TC2E-115, one vs 2,4,6,8 cabinets. outside measurement mic at 5 meter on ground. The point was only to see how multiple cabs affected response overal and not how loud. No volt calibration. only spl meter readout entered in rew which was 96db at 5 meter for the first cab. Crossover set at 35hz 24dB/BW HP and 100hz 24dB/BW LP. The 8 cab (top purple/blue line) set crossover at 25hz and 250hz.
I recently did a test for the frequency response for the Paraflex TC2E-115, one vs 2,4,6,8 cabinets. outside measurement mic at 5 meter on ground. The point was only to see how multiple cabs affected response overal and not how loud. No volt calibration. only spl meter readout entered in rew which was 96db at 5 meter for the first cab. Crossover set at 35hz 24dB/BW HP and 100hz 24dB/BW LP. The 8 cab (top purple/blue line) set crossover at 25hz and 250hz.
Last edited:
Good to see some measurements done at large scale!
With an increase from one to eight cabinets, we expect to see around +18dB gain, (+6dB per doubling) which seems fairly consistent in your test from around 50-80 Hz.
In the 35Hz range, it appears there around a +30 dB increase, +12 over "standard" gain.
Even accounting for increased mouth area (and the HP change), that seems unusual.
Any explanations?
Art
Last edited:
@Art and BP, like i said it was not about db's but about frequency response graph over the bandwidth. I had to adjust my mic input every two cabinets or so to prevent clipping, i set all 3 amps to the same gain level output. And sometimes I use one channel for two cabinets and sometimes one channel for one cabinet so it switched from 8 to 4 ohm. So maybe that is why some graphs are not one different levels. But like I said that was not the point of my test.
Next time I drag the stacks out, hopefully this time with some help, I will try to adjust every amp output to 2.83v and spl calibrate and output every channel to its own cabinet. Then we can do a spl/db type measurement. I also wanted to do some stacking option and cardioid setups but I was alone and was unable to handle the cabinets on my own.
Next time I drag the stacks out, hopefully this time with some help, I will try to adjust every amp output to 2.83v and spl calibrate and output every channel to its own cabinet. Then we can do a spl/db type measurement. I also wanted to do some stacking option and cardioid setups but I was alone and was unable to handle the cabinets on my own.