Hey guys. After some time with my lovely 21DS115 for both inner and outer usage, I would like to “move somewhere else” with my audio. I do change my audio chain quite regularly, just for sake of fun, experience, novelty. It´s good hobby… My new goal is to build something to outdo the 21DS115, mainly in frequency response and usable bandwidth. More power also doesn´t hurt. It should be compact/modular system, so loading into the car will not be such a pain. I made my 21” box quite compact for what it is, but it´s obvious that good 21” box cannot be REALLY compact…
For next build, I would like if the external box volume would be under 180l/6,35cu.ft. each. Two to eight bins, depending on size, price and construction. Should go down to 25-26Hz with plenty of power. Not absolutely easy task, because 21DS115 is beasty driver, with plenty of SPL output and displacement volume. I was thinking about 18DS115s, but the box could not be made that small. It´s a beast driver, and the bassreflex port would eat too much of the box volume. So I´m wondering which way to go. I have good experience with TMLs and Tapped Horns, and I wouldn´t mind folded horn. BUT, that is not easy to do either, with 25Hz extension, in a small box.
Any ideas please? I´m now looking at some 12” long excursion Faital drivers and 10”/12” Daytons, yet I´m very unsure, and it seems that it´s not that easy to outgun the 21” for less that two/three times the price…
For next build, I would like if the external box volume would be under 180l/6,35cu.ft. each. Two to eight bins, depending on size, price and construction. Should go down to 25-26Hz with plenty of power. Not absolutely easy task, because 21DS115 is beasty driver, with plenty of SPL output and displacement volume. I was thinking about 18DS115s, but the box could not be made that small. It´s a beast driver, and the bassreflex port would eat too much of the box volume. So I´m wondering which way to go. I have good experience with TMLs and Tapped Horns, and I wouldn´t mind folded horn. BUT, that is not easy to do either, with 25Hz extension, in a small box.
Any ideas please? I´m now looking at some 12” long excursion Faital drivers and 10”/12” Daytons, yet I´m very unsure, and it seems that it´s not that easy to outgun the 21” for less that two/three times the price…
Hey.
I don't really see how to push those 15"s in small enclosures down to 26Hz without additional accoustical loading. Too inefficient and expensive? But you are onto something. Also 15" TH or FLH cannot be made small. I tried some sims and only 8"s and 10"s can be made this small... It kicks me back to 18" drivers, wondering, if I should not push it harder with the box volume, using special ports or passive radiators... Also I found 18IPALs are available. Any experience with driving these conventionally? From the tech specs, it looks like they work in non-linear fashion regarding cone excursion.
I don't really see how to push those 15"s in small enclosures down to 26Hz without additional accoustical loading. Too inefficient and expensive? But you are onto something. Also 15" TH or FLH cannot be made small. I tried some sims and only 8"s and 10"s can be made this small... It kicks me back to 18" drivers, wondering, if I should not push it harder with the box volume, using special ports or passive radiators... Also I found 18IPALs are available. Any experience with driving these conventionally? From the tech specs, it looks like they work in non-linear fashion regarding cone excursion.
If you have the power and cash, the IPAL's are hard to beat. Have you checked out Data-Bass?
Will give you an idea of what can be accomplished. There are other drivers that will go lower per box volume than IPAL's but with a big hit in upper bass output. Also very expensive. Hard task for sure.
Will give you an idea of what can be accomplished. There are other drivers that will go lower per box volume than IPAL's but with a big hit in upper bass output. Also very expensive. Hard task for sure.
I am aware about Data-Bass, but couldn´t find 18IPAL there. 21IPAL is another beast. Larger coil, even more motor force. I found about 21DS115 though, and that´s why I have it now. With time and experience, I found it´s not that funny to lug around with it, therefore this change.....
I don´t really need cash for that much power immediately, as I´m very certain, that for home usage, I´ll hit the cone excursion/ output distortion limit first. After time, I will find some cash to feed it full 2500-3000W per piece, for beast mode outside.
Now, 18" driver is still quite large, and needs some box volume. My need for smaller modular solution goes against it a lot. A compromise can be made. I can put it in really small box. Then the driver potential will not be fully used. It will be very "power output dense" small box, I can tell you. And I´m okay with it. No need for too many bins with low efficiency and low power, to get the same final output power, when two compact bins can do. Yet, the driver will be underpowered according to specs, and not fully used. I mean there are goodies about the driver that help me achieve the goal, and the rest is just a bonus I don´t have to appreciate. No other driver will do the same in the same box volume I guess. There is no similar driver, that needs just 1000W....
If there are drivers, that would go lower in the same box volume, with the same SPL, could you please point me at these? That sounds very interesting...
I don´t really need cash for that much power immediately, as I´m very certain, that for home usage, I´ll hit the cone excursion/ output distortion limit first. After time, I will find some cash to feed it full 2500-3000W per piece, for beast mode outside.
Now, 18" driver is still quite large, and needs some box volume. My need for smaller modular solution goes against it a lot. A compromise can be made. I can put it in really small box. Then the driver potential will not be fully used. It will be very "power output dense" small box, I can tell you. And I´m okay with it. No need for too many bins with low efficiency and low power, to get the same final output power, when two compact bins can do. Yet, the driver will be underpowered according to specs, and not fully used. I mean there are goodies about the driver that help me achieve the goal, and the rest is just a bonus I don´t have to appreciate. No other driver will do the same in the same box volume I guess. There is no similar driver, that needs just 1000W....
If there are drivers, that would go lower in the same box volume, with the same SPL, could you please point me at these? That sounds very interesting...
I'd like to be shown to be wrong, but I'm thinking no-way to get 25-26Hz with 6.35cu ft external.....at least at any SPL comparable to your 21",
unless you're willing to build/use so many small boxes you end up so much more to move/lug around/and amp, than your 21", that you say screw the small boxes
I ended up moving from single 18"s to dual 18"s, just cause the bigger boxes are easier to move around. I tried the modular approach and turned back.
For me, bigger boxes with built in castors are the way to go...even for in the home..easy on the back, I don't even try to lift them.
And they tilt/lay into the back of van or truck when mobile.
unless you're willing to build/use so many small boxes you end up so much more to move/lug around/and amp, than your 21", that you say screw the small boxes
I ended up moving from single 18"s to dual 18"s, just cause the bigger boxes are easier to move around. I tried the modular approach and turned back.
For me, bigger boxes with built in castors are the way to go...even for in the home..easy on the back, I don't even try to lift them.
And they tilt/lay into the back of van or truck when mobile.
I meant 6,35cu ft. per box. So that is possible, obviously. But with what efficiency, I get it...
I take your proposal and opinion to heart. I didn´t think about ergonomics that much before. Now it seems it would help tremendously.
I´m planning to build 2-4 boxes. Two 18"s on wheels would do....
I take your proposal and opinion to heart. I didn´t think about ergonomics that much before. Now it seems it would help tremendously.
I´m planning to build 2-4 boxes. Two 18"s on wheels would do....
Of course you can go that low in this volue. Dayton 12"s Eminence Lab12 and others can do it in this volume. Yet you would need four of these to actually overpower 21DS115. That´s 2x the price for drivers alone, and possibly more than 2x the price for enclosures. So that is not efficiend and ecconomical.
Nothing is decided, Most probably, I´ll keep it for next year and work on my decision. But I work on it night and day...
Experienced people everywhere didn´t bother to think about drivers too much, as there is not much to upgrade from here. But on multiple occasion, I have been recommended to improve on ergonomics. So I´m thinking.
Handles + wheels + legs + sledge? That might really be much much easier to move then.
I thought the "low" design will be easy to move, turn to grab better and so on, but I´ve been proven wrong. With "tall" design, the box is already in good position for work and for moving too...
Experienced people everywhere didn´t bother to think about drivers too much, as there is not much to upgrade from here. But on multiple occasion, I have been recommended to improve on ergonomics. So I´m thinking.
Handles + wheels + legs + sledge? That might really be much much easier to move then.
I thought the "low" design will be easy to move, turn to grab better and so on, but I´ve been proven wrong. With "tall" design, the box is already in good position for work and for moving too...
Attachments
Crash, I really think you're thinking straight now.
One of biggest reasons I went to a double 18" Push pull double 18
from very successful single 18"s
diy single 18"s and OS
was because it kept dawning on me that lugging the damn single 18"s around was much harder than moving around labhorns or orbitshifters....despite their greater bulk.
I now believe, If we lift a sub, we're doing it wrong
One of biggest reasons I went to a double 18" Push pull double 18
from very successful single 18"s
diy single 18"s and OS
was because it kept dawning on me that lugging the damn single 18"s around was much harder than moving around labhorns or orbitshifters....despite their greater bulk.
I now believe, If we lift a sub, we're doing it wrong
That might be spot on. But I need to keep an eye on myself to be sure I don´t do something wicked and useless. It´s not that I wouldn´t be happy with loading a stack into the care. I can go 8 times to the car and back. But there is a lot of negative with stacks, compared to least amount of boxes, when one can do it. Cabs price rises, total volume of cabs rises, connectors, cables (price and amount), connecting it and reconnecting everytime I take it out, and back in. That is pain too. BUT. I definitely need at least two boxes, as in case of one fails me, the other one will be able to "finish" the gig somehow. That is quite important for me too.
You did very nice things with your audio. Good read. Yet some links in the threads you posted for reading are "weeks deep" for reading. I´ll continue on christmas holiday. Better than TV. Thanks for good sources.
Oh, and I might gob some saw dust, as I have some wood to spare, so I can simply try my stupid ideas before they materialize in some serious way.
I use my audio 90-95% at home, but there is this 5-10% for outside fun, and it would hurt if I could not do that. Many times, nobody helps me with loading and unloading. So that would not be possible, and that would hurt, not having that fun.
The sketch I´ve posted is really as large and heavy as I´m able to tolerate. It´s borderline "too small", but also borderline too big and heavy. I´ll work for it though. Add some workouts to the running, and it will be easy peasy. :-D
You did very nice things with your audio. Good read. Yet some links in the threads you posted for reading are "weeks deep" for reading. I´ll continue on christmas holiday. Better than TV. Thanks for good sources.
Oh, and I might gob some saw dust, as I have some wood to spare, so I can simply try my stupid ideas before they materialize in some serious way.
I use my audio 90-95% at home, but there is this 5-10% for outside fun, and it would hurt if I could not do that. Many times, nobody helps me with loading and unloading. So that would not be possible, and that would hurt, not having that fun.
The sketch I´ve posted is really as large and heavy as I´m able to tolerate. It´s borderline "too small", but also borderline too big and heavy. I´ll work for it though. Add some workouts to the running, and it will be easy peasy. :-D
I'm also working on a double 18 design at the moment.
A bit like the SB1000, but with different ports, volume and push pull configuration.
About the wheels, al my cabs have them on the back from my experience that works best with lower cabs. TH118 like cabs it's better suited to put them in one end.
A bit like the SB1000, but with different ports, volume and push pull configuration.
About the wheels, al my cabs have them on the back from my experience that works best with lower cabs. TH118 like cabs it's better suited to put them in one end.
have you concidered the eigtheensound 21 ntlw5000
ive heard the ds115 suffers from powercompression,the 18sound uses tetracoil.
ive heard the ds115 suffers from powercompression,the 18sound uses tetracoil.
Smitske96: You guys are sick. :-D If you use these setups for home audio too, Then I guess I´m no match. Not that I would want to.
The problem with low cabs is then that you have to turn it to get it on the wheels. When I use it at home, the box is aligned with/in the table next to the wall, so I have no access to handles and wheels, so I have to pull it out into the space the hard way, and then turn it. That smells trouble to me. It would be sweet if those wheels could be from the bottom side already, but that also is problematic on its own. And wheels sticking from the box is also a problem. I´m a problematic guy I guess...
Anyway, I´ll work on it, and hopefully I find the solution.
epa: Obviously, to a point. If we compare 21DS115 and 21SW152, we´re talking 131cm^2 coil versus 154cm^2 coil. Aluminum versus Copper. More forced cooling versus quieter cooling. I believe it´s wise to use only about 2000-2400Watts for this speaker, while 21SW152 would do with 3000-3200W for adequate power compression.
If we load the speaker to the horn or bandpass, it will get even worse.
But the driver is effective, and I am very certain I will be rather cone excursion limited. Especially for home audio usage. So that is not a problem for me at this moment.
The question for Eighteensound is how much real usable cone excursion would I get with this one. The 21DS115 does quite well to 17mm. The Eighteensound would need to reach for 4 more mm to get me interested in the change, and that only for purpose of usage under the box tuning, to stretch it even further.
The problem with low cabs is then that you have to turn it to get it on the wheels. When I use it at home, the box is aligned with/in the table next to the wall, so I have no access to handles and wheels, so I have to pull it out into the space the hard way, and then turn it. That smells trouble to me. It would be sweet if those wheels could be from the bottom side already, but that also is problematic on its own. And wheels sticking from the box is also a problem. I´m a problematic guy I guess...
Anyway, I´ll work on it, and hopefully I find the solution.
epa: Obviously, to a point. If we compare 21DS115 and 21SW152, we´re talking 131cm^2 coil versus 154cm^2 coil. Aluminum versus Copper. More forced cooling versus quieter cooling. I believe it´s wise to use only about 2000-2400Watts for this speaker, while 21SW152 would do with 3000-3200W for adequate power compression.
If we load the speaker to the horn or bandpass, it will get even worse.
But the driver is effective, and I am very certain I will be rather cone excursion limited. Especially for home audio usage. So that is not a problem for me at this moment.
The question for Eighteensound is how much real usable cone excursion would I get with this one. The 21DS115 does quite well to 17mm. The Eighteensound would need to reach for 4 more mm to get me interested in the change, and that only for purpose of usage under the box tuning, to stretch it even further.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.