# Subwoofer Tests - Fall 2007



## Ilkka

I have kept you all under the radar thus far, but I have just completed my fall 2007 subwoofer test session. These are the subwoofers (and one speaker) I tested today. Results and pictures will follow. 

Anthony Gallo TR-1
Audio Pro Level 110
BK XLS300/PR
BK Extreme
Gradient Evidence MKII
DIY CSS SDX15 sealed 100L
DIY CSS 2xSDX15 sealed 140L
DIY TC Sounds LMS-5400 18" sealed 100L
DIY TC Sounds LMS-5400 18" + 2x18" PR 200L
DIY Servo v2 (see. round 3)
JL Audio Fathom f113
SVS PB12-NSD
SVS PB13-Ultra (all four settings)
Velodyne SPL-1200 MKII
Yamaha YST-SW1500

Pictures!

Here are the results for the CEA-2010 standard I also used last time (round 4). I would recommend everyone to read this document regarding the standard. The CEA-2010 standard defines a new way for measuring and determining the clean maximum output level for a subwoofer. The signal used is a 6.5 cycle long sine burst which allows a safe measurement of the maximum output level. The max SPL is limited by the stepped distortion threshold (allows less distortion for higher harmonics) or the limitations/limiters of the subwoofer itself, which ever is reached first. The standard defines the max SPL normalized to 1 meter distance (half-space) and peak value of the sine burst, but I use the more familiar 2 meter distance and the RMS value of the sine burst. That way these figures are more comparable to the results measured by using the more common sine wave sweep/tone method.

The amplifier for all the DIY subwoofers (except the "DIY Servo v2") measured during round 5 was a Crown CE4000. The rated output at 4 ohms bridged is 3600 watts. With "DIY CSS 2xSDX15 sealed 140L" I used two of these amplifiers. 

The "Gradient Evidence MK2" is a Finnish main speaker that I own (naturally a pair of them). I wanted to measure its bass performance because I haven't seen this kind of measurements done on speakers, even though their role in achieving well balanced sound system is absolutely critical. It is a 3-way speaker using a 6.5" coaxial driver and an 8" woofer in a ~35-40 liter ported enclosure. I used only one speaker during the measurements, but later on added 6 dB for the second speaker (assuming full coupling).

Below are the results for the newest (fall 2007/round 5) and the one prior to that (spring 2007/round 4) measurement session organized in "Low-bass Avg." (average of the 40-63 Hz values) column order.










Below are the results for the newest (fall 2007/round 5) and the one prior to that (spring 2007/round 4) measurement session organized in "Ultra low-bass Avg." (average of the 20-31.5 Hz values) column order.










Below are the results for the newest (fall 2007/round 5) and the one prior to that (spring 2007/round 4) measurement session organized in average of the 20-80 Hz order. I had to estimate the 20 Hz and 25 Hz values for the HSU MBM-12 and the Gradient Evidence MK2. I subtracted 9 dB from the 31.5 Hz and 18 dB from the 25 Hz values.











*** Notice that the TC Sounds 2xTC-2000 15" sealed 140L had a bad second driver (surround came off due to a manuf. defect) during the CEA-2010 test so it's results at 40 Hz and down are NOT what they should be. The real numbers at the low end should be slightly higher than the numbers for the CSS 2xSDX15 sealed 140L.


----------



## SteveCallas

Sly dog :hail:


----------



## darrellh44

subscribing


----------



## Sonnie

This should be very interesting... :T


----------



## Ilkka

*Pictures*

Pictures are up!

http://jumi.lut.fi/~maeronen/sub/syksy/


----------



## anidabi

*Re: LMS-5400 / RL-p18" buy-in*

Man those LMS drivers look cool. Gives some serious authority. :devil: 

BTW, those LMS enclosures are the best looking I have ever seen. :R


----------



## Ilkka

*Re: LMS-5400 / RL-p18" buy-in*



anidabi said:


> BTW, those LMS enclosures are the best looking I have ever seen. :R


Thanks a lot fellow Finn. These are the particular comments I like to read after a long measuring session. Thanks again. :thumbsdown:

I had only one week to desing and build those two large enclosures. Outlook isn't top priority then, performance is. I have plenty of time to finish them now when the measurements are done.


----------



## anidabi

*Re: LMS-5400 / RL-p18" buy-in*



Ilkka said:


> Thanks a lot fellow Finn. These are the particular comments I like to read after a long measuring session. Thanks again. :thumbsdown:
> 
> I had only one week to desing and build those two large enclosures. Outlook isn't top priority then, performance is. I have plenty of time to finish them now when the measurements are done.


Haha, don't take it so seriously. I was just teasing because I knew that you made those in very short time. The looks are not important, only performance is. :T


----------



## Mark Seaton

Another impressive endeavor Ilkka. :clap:

Very interested in seeing the results of more than a few the subs you tested.


----------



## JCD

Ooogly Moogly! That 18" with the passive radiator is quite impressive! Very impressive for something that you had to "slap together". Woof, that thing is huge..

As with everyone else, looking forward to the results..

JCD


----------



## Ilkka

The first post in this thread now contains the CEA-2010 standard results. Notice that these are NOT the full results yet. Full results (frequency response, power compression sweeps, distortion, group delay, spectral contimination etc.) will follow after I have processed them.


----------



## itte

Thanks for the tests in this forum also.


----------



## Ilkka

Some of you may wonder the absence of the SVS PB13-Ultra. I was supposed to test it too, but unfortunately SVS/L-Sound wasn't able to provide it in time. It's still on its way and it's uncertain whether I will be able to test it this fall due to bad weather.


----------



## Blaser

Great Job Ilkka....Very much appreciate all your effots! :bigsmile: That LMS 18 is definitely the strongest driver I have seen according to any measurements you have done.

I wish I could afford 2:whistling:


----------



## SteveCallas

Not only have you outdone everyone else in terms of testing subs, now you went and outdid yourself. Two tests within 6 months - very impressive :T

Can't wait for the full results, but uhhh....I'm actually a little disappointed in the LMS 18 with two 18" passive radiators. At no frequency can it provide a clean 6db advantage over the TC2k 15" sub using a 6" diameter port. Ignoring the cost of the driver, PRs ain't exactly cheap. I dunno, I guess I was expecting more :dontknow:


----------



## Ricci

The LMS is looking mighty strong, especially the 100L sealed. The fathom put up some impressive #'s too.


----------



## mojomike

Ilkka, how comparable are your tests to the AV Talk tests?


----------



## mike c

nice! when do you think we'll see the standard FR, PC, GD, THD charts 

sorry, I'm totally unfamiliar with these new CEA standards.

thanks for doing all the work!

finally, someones done some tests on the yamaha yst-sw1500. can't wait to see the PC chart on this one. looks like the tuning is really high - hehe - where did the yamaha quoted frequency extension come from?  -20db?


----------



## mike c

i'll echo mojomike's question:

everything else seems comparable to the AVTALK tests, but a layman like me is having a hard time comparing the power compression charts ...


----------



## mike c

the yst-sw1500 looks to be a great replacement for the mbm-12 (to those who have no access to HSU)


----------



## Ilkka

mojomike said:


> Ilkka, how comparable are your tests to the AV Talk tests?


Based on earlier tests performed on same subwoofers (not the exact same units though), our tests are very comparable when it comes to absolute SPL. Though one must notice that the exact measuring methodologies are slightly different. Both of us have also altered our methods along the way, for example I have always used a reversed sine sweep method (starts at higher frequencies), while AV Talk used a forward sweep until recently switched to reversed, too. So I'd say some of the older results are less comparable due to this difference. For example AV Talk managed to bottom out some of the SVS cylinder models and they had to terminate the forward sweeps, and therefore the difference seems to be larger than it really is. AV Talk was also using a much shorter sweep in the past, which results in lower THD (distortion) levels with most subwoofers due to less VC heating. Now they are using much longer, though still shorter than mine, reversed sweep.

The largest difference is that the AV Talk doesn't use the new CEA-2010 standard. It is currently the only safe and accurate method for determining the clean maximum SPL at every frequency (nine 1/3 octave wide bands in 12.5 - 80 Hz range). Traditional sine sweep method doesn't necessarily show the maximum SPL at all frequencies because the highest sweep doesn't show high/full compression at all frequencies. Usually compression is higher at lower frequencies, but higher frequencies are still relatively compression free at this sweep level.

Let's take the new SVS PB13-Ultra for example. You can see that there is already ~5 dB of compression near the tuning frequency (15-16 Hz), but only 1 dB or less at higher. That means that the highest sweep (110 dB) doesn't show the maximum output in the mid and upper bass range. I'm suspecting it would still have around 2-4 dB juice in the tank above ~30 Hz. So therefore one can not compare those figures with the CEA-2010 maximum output figures.

Recap: Our tests are pretty similar but there are some differences in measuring methods that can cause pretty significant differences if you don't know how to interpret them, and also depending of the subwoofers that you are comparing. If you want to compare some specific subwoofers, please let me know and I will help you to make the comparison more accurate. :nerd: 

AV Talk's test are really good and I applaud to Roger for performing them. If it would be easy or cheap to perform the test we take, more people would be doing them.


----------



## Ilkka

mike c said:


> nice! when do you think we'll see the standard FR, PC, GD, THD charts


Any guess at this point would be purely academical. 



> sorry, I'm totally unfamiliar with these new CEA standards.


Have you read this document?

http://personal.inet.fi/private/zipman/starobin_CEA2010.pdf

It should explain the CEA-2010 pretty easily and thoroughly. It is actually much more easier to understand than most of the other tests I take.


----------



## JimP

Ilkka said:


> Some of you may wonder the absence of the SVS PB13-Ultra. I was supposed to test it too, but unfortunately SVS/L-Sound wasn't able to provide it in time. It's still on its way and it's uncertain whether I will be able to test it this fall due to bad weather.



The one sub that I'm interested in and it doesn't make it to the test. :wits-end:


----------



## Doctor X

Ilkka, could you please add the SVS PB10 NSD to the list ? I currently own one and I would like to know where it stands amongst all the other subwoofers.

Thanks.

--Regards,


----------



## Ilkka

Vaughan100 said:


> Ilkka, could you please add the SVS PB10 NSD to the list ? I currently own one and I would like to know where it stands amongst all the other subwoofers.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --Regards,


I can not just simply add it to the list because I haven't tested its CEA-2010 limits. But based on other previous measurements, its performance was just a tad below the BK Monolith-DF.


----------



## Doctor X

But will you test the PB10 to confirm ? The next question I guess is when ? 

I'm also surprised that the PB12-NSD performed so well against the 20-39 PC+. It basically outperformed it down at the lowest frequency measured. Even when using a low tune, the PB12 either matched or slightly pulled away. 

Although higher up in the frequency range, the PC+ obviously took the lead. Still impressive for the NSD in my opinion.

--Regards,


----------



## ssabripo

you dawg!!! trying to get these tests under our feet, eh? 

great stuff as always Ilkka....very interesting results to say the least.


----------



## Guest

Ilkka said:


> The largest difference is that the AV Talk doesn't use the new CEA-2010 standard. It is currently the only safe and accurate method for determining the clean maximum SPL at every frequency (nine 1/3 octave wide bands in 12.5 - 80 Hz range). Traditional sine sweep method doesn't necessarily show the maximum SPL at all frequencies because the highest sweep doesn't show high/full compression at all frequencies. Usually compression is higher at lower frequencies, but higher frequencies are still relatively compression free at this sweep level.
> 
> Let's take the new SVS PB13-Ultra for example. You can see that there is already ~5 dB of compression near the tuning frequency (15-16 Hz), but only 1 dB or less at higher. That means that the highest sweep (110 dB) doesn't show the maximum output in the mid and upper bass range. I'm suspecting it would still have around 2-4 dB juice in the tank above ~30 Hz. So therefore one can not compare those figures with the CEA-2010 maximum output figures.
> 
> Recap: Our tests are pretty similar but there are some differences in measuring methods that can cause pretty significant differences if you don't know how to interpret them, and also depending of the subwoofers that you are comparing. If you want to compare some specific subwoofers, please let me know and I will help you to make the comparison more accurate. :nerd:
> 
> AV Talk's test are really good and I applaud to Roger for performing them. If it would be easy or cheap to perform the test we take, more people would be doing them.


Outstanding contribution Illka for the way you have employed CEA-2010 measurements as the core of your testing methodology. It really is the best way to compare subs and in my opinion puts you now at the cutting edge of comparative measurements with AVtalk being a useful supplement. Well done, again. :clap:

Regarding the Fl113, at what frequencies and conditions did you see compression?


----------



## Ilkka

jakeman said:


> Outstanding contribution Illka for the way you have employed CEA-2010 measurements as the core of your testing methodology. It really is the best way to compare subs and in my opinion puts you now at the cutting edge of comparative measurements with AVtalk being a useful supplement. Well done, again. :clap:


Thank you, John. 



> Regarding the Fl113, at what frequencies and conditions did you see compression?


This is a bit too specific question at this point. I think you have to wait for the full results. :innocent: But let's just say that the f113 has pretty strong limiters and that there is considerable amount of deep bass (below 30-40 Hz) compression at high output levels. But in overall the f113 is pretty incredible performer for its size. Sure it's really expensive but that's the price you have to pay.


----------



## Doctor X

Ilkka, any idea when you might test the PB10 ? I'm thinking of upgrading to either an Epik Valor or dual PB10's. My only requirement is that I want twice the clean output of the PB10.

I'm hoping that an Epik Valor will be able to match or exceed dual Pb10's with it's 15" high excursion driver. 

--Regards,


----------



## ISLAND1000

Ilkka, what a historic event you've staged! Your tests will be talked about for a long long time. The individual performance of these spectacular sub units will provide canon fodder between opposing sides as to which sub does it's job better, cheaper, louder, more faithfully with less distortion than the others.
Congratulations on a job well done.
Oh, and by the way, you don't have to keep apologizing for the unfinished appearance of the LMS enclosures. We, us DIYers, all understand you were under extreme pressure to show the performance figures as soon as possible. Being unfinished however allowed us to see the quality build you've done in such a short period of time. The series of photos and test results tell us you are truly a scientist, engineer, and audiophile to be admired.


----------



## Guest

Ilkka said:


> Thank you, John.
> 
> 
> This is a bit too specific question at this point. I think you have to wait for the full results. :innocent: But let's just say that the f113 has pretty strong limiters and that there is considerable amount of deep bass (below 30-40 Hz) compression at high output levels. But in overall the f113 is pretty incredible performer for its size. Sure it's really expensive but that's the price you have to pay.


Ok Illka, I look forward to the specifics. It is an incredible performer... measurements and listening tests considered, and my favourite sub these days. But the price does reflect diminishing returns compared to many other excellent subs especially the DIY units.


----------



## Doctor X

Leave out the audiophile part. 

--Regards,


----------



## ISLAND1000

Vaughan100 said:


> Leave out the audiophile part.
> 
> --Regards,


Why? What's he got . . . . wax in his ears!:nerd:


----------



## Ilkka

Vaughan100 said:


> Ilkka, any idea when you might test the PB10 ? I'm thinking of upgrading to either an Epik Valor or dual PB10's. My only requirement is that I want twice the clean output of the PB10.
> 
> I'm hoping that an Epik Valor will be able to match or exceed dual Pb10's with it's 15" high excursion driver.
> 
> --Regards,


I have already tested the PB10, actually twice. You can see its results (not the CEA-2010) in the subwoofer tests sub-forum.

I haven't tested the Epik Valor (their amps do not support 230V), but I'm pretty it doesn't have twice the clean output of the PB10, at least when it comes to deep bass frequencies. Up higher that might be possible. If you want a clear upgrade, you need a larger ported subwoofer, or two.


----------



## Ilkka

Vaughan100 said:


> Leave out the audiophile part.
> 
> --Regards,


:huh:


----------



## Guest

Ikka, GJ on the testing:T Those 2x sealed SDX15 looks very interisting:devil:


----------



## Doctor X

I said "leave out the audiophile part" because the word "audiophile" and "scientist" are usually mutually exclusive, hence my wording. Sorry if anyone was offended.

--Regards,


----------



## Doctor X

Sorry, Ilkka, perhaps I didn't get my point across. I know that you've measured the PB10, but what I would really like is for you to test the PB10 using the new testing method so that I can compare my subwoofer to all the others listed.

Thanks.

--Regards,


----------



## Ilkka

Vaughan100 said:


> Sorry, Ilkka, perhaps I didn't get my point across. I know that you've measured the PB10, but what I would really like is for you to test the PB10 using the new testing method so that I can compare my subwoofer to all the others listed.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --Regards,


Yes, I did get it. I haven't performed the CEA-2010 test on the PB10, but that doesn't mean one couldn't extrapolate its performance by looking at the other measurements. I already said that if you subtract around 1-1.5 dB from the BK Monolith-DF's numbers, you're golden.


----------



## Doctor X

Okay, cool. Thanks !

--Regards,


----------



## ISLAND1000

Vaughan100 said:


> I said "leave out the audiophile part" because the word "audiophile" and "scientist" are usually mutually exclusive, hence my wording. Sorry if anyone was offended.
> 
> --Regards,


You didn't harm anyone. I was just trynna find a fun way to "Gush" over what Ilkka had accomplished and probably over did it a little.
Ilkka however is and always has been very humble . . . . . :whistling:


----------



## ISLAND1000

I notice at this very moment by observing the little green dot next to each members profile that there are LOTS of members pouring over all the latest info from Ilkka. Another testament to his timely work.


----------



## Doctor X

If we take the 16 hz measurement, the BK Monolith scored 88 dB's. Subtract 1.5 dB's and you get 86.5 dB's. So that is what my PB10 should score ? 

I think Tom V has mentioned that the PB12 NSD is about 2-3 dB's louder across the frequency spectrum compared to the PB10. Compared to the 88.6 dB result, the PB12 NSD scored 96 dB's at 16 hz. That is a 8 dB difference. That is like saying that a PB12 is more than twice a PB10 in clean output, _coupled_. 

Something is amiss. I think Tom Vonhanel has once said that dual PB10's are comparable to a single PB12 Ultra in low distortion output. And the figures posted are even more than that. 

--Regards,


----------



## Exocer

Ilkka, thanks a lot for bearing the brunt of all this testing for all of us DIYers to feast on...You are da' man!

Oh, and as someone else said, the dual SDX-15 does like intriguing...It truly is an awesome size/price/performance ratio.:T

Keep up the good work.


----------



## cjwhitehouse

jakeman said:


> Outstanding contribution Illka for the way you have employed CEA-2010 measurements as the core of your testing methodology. It really is the best way to compare subs and in my opinion puts you now at the cutting edge of comparative measurements with AVtalk being a useful supplement. Well done, again. :clap:
> 
> Regarding the Fl113, at what frequencies and conditions did you see compression?


Congratulations, Ilkka on another set of interesting results. I look forward to the full run-down. :nerd:

Assuming that this "really is the best way to compare subs", according to the Ultra Low Bass ranking above, it appears that the best commercial offering currently available is the SVS 20-39PC+ with 12.3 driver in 20Hz tune. All those Fathom owners seem to have wasted their money! :rubeyes:


----------



## Sonnie

Vaughan100 said:


> If we take the 16 hz measurement, the BK Monolith scored 88 dB's. Subtract 1.5 dB's and you get 86.5 dB's. So that is what my PB10 should score ?
> 
> I think Tom V has mentioned that the PB12 NSD is about 2-3 dB's louder across the frequency spectrum compared to the PB10. Compared to the 88.6 dB result, the PB12 NSD scored 96 dB's at 16 hz. That is a 8 dB difference. That is like saying that a PB12 is more than twice a PB10 in clean output, _coupled_.
> 
> Something is amiss. I think Tom Vonhanel has once said that dual PB10's are comparable to a single PB12 Ultra in low distortion output. And the figures posted are even more than that.
> 
> --Regards,




Ice10... I don't think your post will be related to the thread topic. It would probably be best if you start a new thread to discuss it so that this one does not get derailed. Thanks... :T


----------



## Ilkka

Vaughan100 said:


> If we take the 16 hz measurement, the BK Monolith scored 88 dB's. Subtract 1.5 dB's and you get 86.5 dB's. So that is what my PB10 should score ?
> 
> I think Tom V has mentioned that the PB12 NSD is about 2-3 dB's louder across the frequency spectrum compared to the PB10. Compared to the 88.6 dB result, the PB12 NSD scored 96 dB's at 16 hz. That is a 8 dB difference. That is like saying that a PB12 is more than twice a PB10 in clean output, _coupled_.
> 
> Something is amiss. I think Tom Vonhanel has once said that dual PB10's are comparable to a single PB12 Ultra in low distortion output. And the figures posted are even more than that.
> 
> --Regards,


You shouldn't look at the 16 Hz alone. The PB12-NSD is much stronger there due to lower tuning and better driver. If you take the averaged Monolith numbers and subtract 1.5 dB, you'll get 101 dB and 104.1 dB. That's 1.9 dB and 4.6 dB less than what the PB12-NSD delivers. That's 2-4 dB (average) louder across the frequency spectrum compared to the PB10, just like TV said.


----------



## Ilkka

cjwhitehouse said:


> Congratulations, Ilkka on another set of interesting results. I look forward to the full run-down. :nerd:


Thanks, Roger. 



> Assuming that this "really is the best way to compare subs", according to the Ultra Low Bass ranking above, it appears that the best commercial offering currently available is the SVS 20-39PC+ with 12.3 driver in 20Hz tune. All those Fathom owners seem to have wasted their money! :rubeyes:


I don't see it like that. Performance at higher frequencies is usually even more important, and there the f113 is a good 6 dB better than the SVS cylinder. There is also a quite considerable size difference.

And these CEA-2010 numbers do not definitely tell the whole story. They offer a quick reference but more detailed measurements and results are still needed.


----------



## Guest

cjwhitehouse said:


> Assuming that this "really is the best way to compare subs", according to the Ultra Low Bass ranking above, it appears that the best commercial offering currently available is the SVS 20-39PC+ with 12.3 driver in 20Hz tune. All those Fathom owners seem to have wasted their money! :rubeyes:


Hey CJ your work is invaluable as well and I always look at them to garner more detail on the subs behaviour. :hail: The point I was making is that for purposes of a summary benchmark way of comparison the CEA-2010 distortion weighted standard is the best way of comparing subs. Neither the CEA-2010 standard or the plethora of AVTalk measurements tell the full story but they are a great way to zero in on relative performance in key areas.


----------



## cjwhitehouse

Ilkka said:


> I don't see it like that. Performance at higher frequencies is usually even more important, and there the f113 is a good 6 dB better than the SVS cylinder. There is also a quite considerable size difference.
> 
> And these CEA-2010 numbers do not definitely tell the whole story. They offer a quick reference but more detailed measurements and results are still needed.


Heh, I know that. But many round here wouldn't consider a subwoofer worthy of the name unless it had strong output in the 20-31.5Hz range, preferably rather lower. If we were comparing two manufacturer's quoted specs for the CEA-2010 standard consisting of just the two output numbers for low-bass and ultra-low-bass then one might come to a questionable conclusion. As you say, the CEA-2010 numbers only tell you part of the story. :yes:


----------



## Ilkka

cjwhitehouse said:


> Heh, I know that. But many round here wouldn't consider a subwoofer worthy of the name unless it had strong output in the 20-31.5Hz range, preferably rather lower. If we were comparing two manufacturer's quoted specs for the CEA-2010 standard consisting of just the two output numbers for low-bass and ultra-low-bass then one might come to a questionable conclusion. As you say, the CEA-2010 numbers only tell you part of the story. :yes:


I know you knew that, I just wanted to make it clear to the others as well.


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> Can't wait for the full results, but uhhh....I'm actually a little disappointed in the LMS 18 with two 18" passive radiators. At no frequency can it provide a clean 6db advantage over the TC2k 15" sub using a 6" diameter port. Ignoring the cost of the driver, PRs ain't exactly cheap. I dunno, I guess I was expecting more :dontknow:


Well that can be debated, but at least wait until you see the rest of the data. The more traditional distortion sweeps are pretty much out of this world. It is by far the cleanest subwoofer/driver I have ever measured. 

Do I see a dual LMS-5400 18" sealed 200L (with two CE4000s) in the future?  That would be pretty close to my ideal subwoofer. Talk about some crazy output in relatively small package. And the total should still stay below ~$3500.


----------



## ISLAND1000

Ilkka said:


> Well that can be debated, but at least wait until you see the rest of the data. The more traditional distortion sweeps are pretty much out of this world. It is by far the cleanest subwoofer/driver I have ever measured.
> 
> Do I see a dual LMS-5400 18" sealed 200L (with two CE4000s) in the future?  That would be pretty close to my ideal subwoofer. Talk about some crazy output in relatively small package. And the total should still stay below ~$3500.


And I'm guessing the reason you'd choose sealed over ported or PRed is because of the lower distortion numbers and flatter, lower, frequency response possibilities using EQ for the sealed subs. At least that's what TC Sounds has lead us to believe.


----------



## Ilkka

It has finally arrived. Unfortunately a few days too late. Hopefully we will get one more clear weekend... raying:


----------



## mojomike

Ilkka said:


> It has finally arrived. Unfortunately a few days too late. Hopefully we will get one more clear weekend... raying:


Yes, please! raying:


----------



## Guest

Ilkka said:


> Thanks, Roger.
> 
> 
> I don't see it like that. Performance at higher frequencies is usually even more important, and there the f113 is a good 6 dB better than the SVS cylinder. There is also a quite considerable size difference.
> 
> And these CEA-2010 numbers do not definitely tell the whole story. They offer a quick reference but more detailed measurements and results are still needed.


One suggestion to the way you present the data. Like others, I find myself averaging all six max SPL measurements from the 6.5 cycle long sine burst. Another column of Avg. 20hz-63hz would be useful. I believe the distinction of the two categories evolved from the Committee trying to account for the different behaviours of sealed and ported alignments, a distinction which has become more blurred with several of the new subs coming to market in the past year.


----------



## Ilkka

jakeman said:


> One suggestion to the way you present the data. Like others, I find myself averaging all six max SPL measurements from the 6.5 cycle long sine burst. Another column of Avg. 20hz-63hz would be useful. I believe the distinction of the two categories evolved from the Committee trying to account for the different behaviours of sealed and ported alignments, a distinction which has become more blurred with several of the new subs coming to market in the past year.


That is a good idea.  Tough the spreadsheet is already pretty wide, so I made a separate one. And I averaged the values from 20 Hz to 80 Hz. I had to estimate the 20 Hz and 25 Hz values for the HSU MBM-12 and the Gradient Evidence MK2. I subtracted 9 dB from the 31.5 Hz and 18 dB from the 25 Hz values.


----------



## Ricci

SteveCallas said:


> Not only have you outdone everyone else in terms of testing subs, now you went and outdid yourself. Two tests within 6 months - very impressive :T
> 
> Can't wait for the full results, but uhhh....I'm actually a little disappointed in the LMS 18 with two 18" passive radiators. At no frequency can it provide a clean 6db advantage over the TC2k 15" sub using a 6" diameter port. Ignoring the cost of the driver, PRs ain't exactly cheap. I dunno, I guess I was expecting more :dontknow:


It doesn't outdo it by 6db at any one frequency but an average of 4.45db greater across the board in a smaller enclosure isn't too shabby in my book. A pair of the TC2K's would only provide roughly 1.5-2db greater average output and would need 540L. 

Ilkka,
What was the limitating factor for the LMS PR system?


----------



## Ilkka

Ricci said:


> Ilkka,
> What was the limitating factor for the LMS PR system?


It depends of the frequency. Around the tuning frequency it was the PR excursion, above that the active driver excursion/power handling. The CE4000 still had some (not much) juice in the tank but the driver distortion was already hitting the CEA-2010 limits. The distortion threshold is pretty tight for higher harmonics, for example only 1% for 8th and higher. That's where the suspension (mainly the tall profile surround) starts to make bad noises (it wrinkles) at high excursion. Traditional half-roll surround (like the one in f113 or SDX15) is quieter because it doesn't wrinkle. IMO that's the soft spot of the LMS drivers (and any other drivers using the tall profile surround).


----------



## ssabripo

Ilkka, stop being such a wimp ! :bigsmile: Get that Ultra out there and measure it.

btw, I've been trying to get an Epik Conquest or Tower shipped to you, but still nothing concrete. But if you are done for the fall/winter testing, then we have time work on Chad to get you something out there later on raying:


----------



## funky_waves

Ilkka said:


> It depends of the frequency. Around the tuning frequency it was the PR excursion, above that the active driver excursion/power handling. The CE4000 still had some (not much) juice in the tank but the driver distortion was already hitting the CEA-2010 limits. The distortion threshold is pretty tight for higher harmonics, for example only 1% for 8th and higher. That's where the suspension (mainly the tall profile surround) starts to make bad noises (it wrinkles) at high excursion. Traditional half-roll surround (like the one in f113 or SDX15) is quieter because it doesn't wrinkle. IMO that's the soft spot of the LMS drivers (and any other drivers using the tall profile surround).



When I was talking to Mike at Tc he said the were working on a new rubber for the tall surouds specificaly for the Audiopulse LMS ultra that dosn't cavitate(wrinkle) nearly as much. Would be nice to see measurements of the LMS Ultra to compare. Too bad they are $2999 and anyone who sells them can only sell them in there local area, I know because I am going to be selling them, localy only of course.:nerd:


----------



## Guest

ssabripo said:


> Ilkka, stop being such a wimp ! :bigsmile: Get that Ultra out there and measure it.
> 
> btw, I've been trying to get an Epik Conquest or Tower shipped to you, but still nothing concrete. But if you are done for the fall/winter testing, then we have time work on Chad to get you something out there later on raying:


That begs the question on the minds of all subwoofer affaciondos everywhere these days: What's the weather like in Lappeenranta? :newspaper: :bigsmile:

From the CEA-2010 guidelines: "Testing shall be conducted at an ambient temperature of 22C -/+5C and relative humidity of 30% to 80%."


----------



## Ilkka

ssabripo said:


> Ilkka, stop being such a wimp ! :bigsmile: Get that Ultra out there and measure it.
> 
> btw, I've been trying to get an Epik Conquest or Tower shipped to you, but still nothing concrete. But if you are done for the fall/winter testing, then we have time work on Chad to get you something out there later on raying:


I have recently found out that their amps do not support 230V, so no worth sending them before they do.


----------



## Ilkka

funky_waves said:


> When I was talking to Mike at Tc he said the were working on a new rubber for the tall surouds specificaly for the Audiopulse LMS ultra that dosn't cavitate(wrinkle) nearly as much. Would be nice to see measurements of the LMS Ultra to compare. Too bad they are $2999 and anyone who sells them can only sell them in there local area, I know because I am going to be selling them, localy only of course.:nerd:


OK, good news.


----------



## Ilkka

jakeman said:


> That begs the question on the minds of all subwoofer affaciondos everywhere these days: What's the weather like in Lappeenranta? :newspaper: :bigsmile:
> 
> From the CEA-2010 guidelines: "Testing shall be conducted at an ambient temperature of 22C -/+5C and relative humidity of 30% to 80%."


Last weekend was pretty good but now it's really chilly, only around 5 C.

Around 20 C would of course be optimal but I accept ~10 C or higher. The difference will still be pretty minimal. Colder weather means slightly better results.


----------



## brucek

> Testing shall be conducted at an ambient temperature of 22C -/+5C and relative humidity of 30% to 80%


Little bit of rain, lightning and cold weather shouldn't stop testing..........









brucek


----------



## Guest

Ilkka said:


> Last weekend was pretty good but now it's really chilly, only around 5 C.
> 
> Around 20 C would of course be optimal but I accept ~10 C or higher. The difference will still be pretty minimal. Colder weather means slightly better results.


The lower the temperature, the more deviation there will be in output and linearity. Normally I would agree the results would be minimal in an absolute sense, but with this many subs being ranked I can see how the lower temp could end up changing the order of ranking some of these subs. These are your tests of course but conducting them at less than 15C (-7C to give some room) starts to affect the validity of the results for comparative purposes. That would be a shame in light of the excellent work and great effort. :no:


----------



## Ilkka

jakeman said:


> The lower the temperature, the more deviation there will be in output and linearity. Normally I would agree the results would be minimal in an absolute sense, but with this many subs being ranked I can see how the lower temp could end up changing the order of ranking some of these subs. These are your tests of course but conducting them at less than 15C (-7C to give some room) starts to affect the validity of the results for comparative purposes. That would be a shame in light of the excellent work and great effort. :no:


How can you say that? Have you done any testing at different temperatures?

When I said that lower temperature means slightly better results, I meant regular long sine sweep tests. They put a lot of heat into VC and ambient temperature plays some role on how the VC dissipates this heat. But the short burst of the CEA-2010 is vastly different. Because it's only 6.5 cycles long, it doesn't create much heat at all. Therefore ambient temperature doesn't matter that much. 10 C or 20 C will give very close to identical results. That is one more reason why I started to use it: accuracy and especially consistency.

And in any case, the ambient temperature for rounds 4 and 5 was within 2-3 C.


----------



## itte

funky_waves said:


> When I was talking to Mike at Tc he said the were working on a new rubber for the tall surouds specificaly for the Audiopulse LMS ultra that dosn't cavitate(wrinkle) nearly as much. Would be nice to see measurements of the LMS Ultra to compare. Too bad they are $2999 and anyone who sells them can only sell them in there local area, I know because I am going to be selling them, localy only of course.:nerd:


Sorry OT, but that price is ridiculous,it is about triple what it was, so it won´t be a bestseller,pity because it seems to be such a nice driver.


----------



## kyle_k

We're well aware of that higher order harmonic in the surround, its a trade off of excursion. We're working in a few different FEA programs and designing a new tall surround which will probably be made out of a new material too to shave mass and not not cavitate.,We should be able to attenuate that distortion substantially, in fact we already have a working miniature prototype in a 5.25" model. We wont have our new surrounds done for a long while, but its already in the works. 

I want to give a big thanks to Ilkka for making all these measurements. Simply posting data without any relative comparisons is not nearly as meaning full. Its interesting to see how different products stack up again ts one another.

I'm curious to see this new SVS, I know they did a great job on the driver and that big under hung motor should be very linear.


----------



## funky_waves

kyle_k said:


> We're well aware of that higher order harmonic in the surround, its a trade off of excursion. We're working in a few different FEA programs and designing a new tall surround which will probably be made out of a new material too to shave mass and not not cavitate.,We should be able to attenuate that distortion substantially, in fact we already have a working miniature prototype in a 5.25" model. We wont have our new surrounds done for a long while, but its already in the works.
> 
> I want to give a big thanks to Ilkka for making all these measurements. Simply posting data without any relative comparisons is not nearly as meaning full. Its interesting to see how different products stack up again ts one another.
> 
> I'm curious to see this new SVS, I know they did a great job on the driver and that big under hung motor should be very linear.



Thanks for the correction kyle, good to have updated info, It was a while ago I was talking to mike. Nice to see you here.

Nathan Funk


----------



## no. 5

Yeah! more numbers! :nerd: :jump:

I'm happy to finally see test data on the f113... now how about doing the g213? raying:


----------



## Guest

Ilkka said:


> When I said that lower temperature means slightly better results, I meant regular long sine sweep tests. They put a lot of heat into VC and ambient temperature plays some role on how the VC dissipates this heat. But the short burst of the CEA-2010 is vastly different. Because it's only 6.5 cycles long, it doesn't create much heat at all. Therefore ambient temperature doesn't matter that much. 10 C or 20 C will give very close to identical results. That is one more reason why I started to use it: accuracy and especially consistency.


The CEA guideline (22C-/+5C) is a fairly uniform standard for outdoor measurement which is why it was explicitly stated for purposes of the standard. Its not just the VC but to mention a few more, also driver surround, amplifier performance, microphone, suspension linearity, enclosure resonance as well as other measuring equipment that is also impacted. Copper resistive properties decrease with lower temperatures and while any one item may give slight change, if you add it all up experimental error does increase significantly as temperature falls. How much of an effect it will have on compression, FR, transient response, distortion patterns etc will not be the same in each sub. Anyway I'm not trying to detract from your efforts here. Its your methodolgy so good luck with it.


----------



## brucek

> How much of an effect it will have


I suppose a test could be done on a standard to see if there is any difference with temperature change.

brucek


----------



## ISLAND1000

It's revealing that four out of the top five subs use TC Sounds drivers, that the top six subs are DIYers, and eight out of the top ten subs are DIYers.
This list contains some of the best commercial subs available and the DIY subs outperfomed them in these tests. We are at a point where DIY knowledge, available software modeling programs, and cooperation on these forums enable the hobbyest to make for themselves a sub that can outperform commercial units and probably do it for less money per performance dollar.
Congratulations all around. :T








[/QUOTE]


----------



## Sonnie

Ilkka... weren't you going to test the SoundSplinter RL-p15 driver? I'm wondering if it might be comparable to one of the TC Sounds drivers.


----------



## WillyD

> Ilkka... weren't you going to test the SoundSplinter RL-p15 driver? I'm wondering if it might be comparable to one of the TC Sounds drivers.


It should compare to the TC-2000s that Ilkka tested this spring. They aren't exactly identical, but close enough I'd say.


----------



## Ilkka

Sonnie said:


> Ilkka... weren't you going to test the SoundSplinter RL-p15 driver? I'm wondering if it might be comparable to one of the TC Sounds drivers.


Unfortunately no one brought any RL-p based sub in. I would gladly measure one (15" or 18").

But as Willd said, it should be pretty close to TC-2000.


----------



## anidabi

funky_waves said:


> When I was talking to Mike at Tc he said the were working on a new rubber for the tall surouds specificaly for the Audiopulse LMS ultra that dosn't cavitate(wrinkle) nearly as much. Would be nice to see measurements of the LMS Ultra to compare. Too bad they are $2999 and anyone who sells them can only sell them in there local area, I know because I am going to be selling them, localy only of course.:nerd:


Yeah, good news, but with that price I would expect neodymium magnets for that driver.


----------



## anidabi

Ilkka said:


> How can you say that? Have you done any testing at different temperatures?
> 
> When I said that lower temperature means slightly better results, I meant regular long sine sweep tests. They put a lot of heat into VC and ambient temperature plays some role on how the VC dissipates this heat. But the short burst of the CEA-2010 is vastly different. Because it's only 6.5 cycles long, it doesn't create much heat at all. Therefore ambient temperature doesn't matter that much. 10 C or 20 C will give very close to identical results. That is one more reason why I started to use it: accuracy and especially consistency.
> 
> And in any case, the ambient temperature for rounds 4 and 5 was within 2-3 C.
> 
> 
> 
> jakeman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CEA guideline (22C-/+5C) is a fairly uniform standard for outdoor measurement which is why it was explicitly stated for purposes of the standard. Its not just the VC but to mention a few more, also driver surround, amplifier performance, microphone, suspension linearity, enclosure resonance as well as other measuring equipment that is also impacted. Copper resistive properties decrease with lower temperatures and while any one item may give slight change, if you add it all up experimental error does increase significantly as temperature falls. How much of an effect it will have on compression, FR, transient response, distortion patterns etc will not be the same in each sub. Anyway I'm not trying to detract from your efforts here. Its your methodolgy so good luck with it.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. I didn't think about the voice coil heating at all, but like jakeman said, the first thing that came to my mind was the driver surrounds. How does that affect to the results? Especially with LMS drivers wich have rubber surrounds. Maybe the noise at high output was partially from the surround, because of the coldness? Higher distortion levels or something like that? :scratchhead:


----------



## Ilkka

anidabi said:


> This is interesting. I didn't think about the voice coil heating at all, but like jakeman said, the first thing that came to my mind was the driver surrounds. How does that affect to the results? Especially with LMS drivers wich have rubber surrounds. Maybe the noise at high output was partially from the surround, because of the coldness? Higher distortion levels or something like that? :scratchhead:


10 C isn't cold enough to have any real difference. Below 0 C would be a different case though but no one ever tests at those conditions.

The tall profile surround makes the cavitation noise even at normal room temperatures at high excursion (over ~25-30mm one way; think about the SPL at this point!  ). But it's not as bad as people may think, it's just shows up in measurements because the LMS has such ultra low "other" distortion. Other drivers have so much other distortion that this kind of surround distortion doesn't present itself.


----------



## ISLAND1000

Ilkka said:


> The tall profile surround makes the cavitation noise . . . . . . it's just shows up in measurements because the LMS has such ultra low "other" distortion.


 Ilkka, will the other remaining test parameters indicate the presence of the "cavitation noise"? 
In my listening tests of the LMS driver I noticed the "beating or slapping noise" IE: cavitation only at high excursions and the lower end of 10-19 Hz sweeps. I was attempting to fiind the "safe" outer limits of the driver. I had originally thought the sounds might have been soft V/C bottoming but after seeing your tests and this discussion I think it was the tall surround.
This cavitation noise would only occurr or correlate to ear splitting spl at higher frequencies. At this extreme level of spl my sub unit would be many times louder than my mains.
If the surround is producing sounds of it's own, at what frequencies does it occurr?


----------



## SteveCallas

I ignored the SDX15" results the first time looking over this data, looking only at the LMS, but now that I do, things get even more interesting. The 15" SDX, with its smaller voice coil and all, can outdo the TC2k from 25hz on up, and two can outdo the 18" LMS in the same frequency range for less money. That's pretty significant me thinks....I wonder why it doesn't suffer from nearly as much compression? It looks like it would be an excellent fit for a LLT, as it could really benefit from the additional clean headroom down low - that would make for a great sub. It would look to be a notch above a TC2k LLT performance wise.



Ilkka said:


> Do I see a dual LMS-5400 18" sealed 200L (with two CE4000s) in the future? That would be pretty close to my ideal subwoofer. Talk about some crazy output in relatively small package. And the total should still stay below ~$3500.


I dunno, from this preliminary data, it looks like multiples of the SDX would be the better option, no?



ISLAND1000 said:


> And I'm guessing the reason you'd choose sealed over ported or PRed is because of the lower distortion numbers and flatter, lower, frequency response possibilities using EQ for the sealed subs


Hehe, no. Ported or reflex will always have less distortion, sometimes considerably less, and they can aways be made to result in a flatter, deeper extending FR with more headroom. The main reason to go sealed is to save space.


----------



## SteveCallas

Ricci said:


> It doesn't outdo it by 6db at any one frequency but an average of 4.45db greater across the board in a smaller enclosure isn't too shabby in my book.


No, not too shabby indeed, but by going from a ~$300 15" driver with no exotic low distortion motor technology and a ~$10 6" diameter port to a ~$875 18" driver using LMS technology and two ~$300 (?) PRs, I was expecting more. Two SDX LLTs would look to outperform the LMS even more, while still costing considerably less. 

You pay a *big* premium for a smaller enclosure.


----------



## WillyD

> I ignored the SDX15" results the first time looking over this data, looking only at the LMS, but now that I do, things get even more interesting. The 15" SDX, with its smaller voice coil and all, can outdo the TC2k from 25hz on up, and two can outdo the 18" LMS in the same frequency range for less money. That's pretty significant me thinks....I wonder why it doesn't suffer from nearly as much compression? It looks like it would be an excellent fit for a LLT, as it could really benefit from the additional clean headroom down low - that would make for a great sub. It would look to be a notch above a TC2k LLT performance wise.


Its the <25Hz performance that concerns me with the SDX. And since when have you or anyone else cared so much about >25Hz performance from a sub? Getting that has never been the hard part. Sure the pair of SDXs in 140liters edges out the single 5400 in 100liters from 31.5Hz to 80Hz, but wow, look at the 20Hz and below performance. The 5400 crushes it, with an average of 5.7dB more output; and that is with one CE-4000 vs the pair of amps for the twin SDX sub. So in reality, the pair doesn't outperform the LMS-5400 for less. 

And you've seen the power compression magnitude measurements already? I didn't know Ilkka released them yet. 

And there are a few differences between the tests in the fall and the ones in the spring. Fall, Ilkka used the CE4000 all around. Superior amp, as you know, the 2000 could've definitely used a more powerful amp in the spring. There is at least a 1000W difference between the CE4000 and the t.amp TA2400 MK-X used with the TC-2k. Something tells me that extra 1000W would bump up the TC-2000s CEA-2010 clean output results from the spring just a tad. :whistling:

I'll still wait and see the full set of results. The CEA-2010 table isn't enough by itself for me to completely judge a sub. Its neat, but the individual threads tell the real and true story.


----------



## Ricci

SteveCallas said:


> No, not too shabby indeed, but by going from a ~$300 15" driver with no exotic low distortion motor technology and a ~$10 6" diameter port to a ~$875 18" driver using LMS technology and two ~$300 (?) PRs, I was expecting more. Two SDX LLTs would look to outperform the LMS even more, while still costing considerably less.
> 
> You pay a *big* premium for a smaller enclosure.


Of course it is much cheaper to go with the SDX's or TC2K's. Not everyone wants to put 600litres worth of subwoofer/s in their room though, and some people will always be willing to pay to get big performance out of a smaller sub. Also how is it that the premium is that BIG? 2 SDX's is about $600 and keep in mind that you need 2 CE4000's at $600 a pop used, (that is actually quite the deal there), that's roughly $1.8k. The LMS was $875, $600 for the CE4000, and $600 for the PR's(I think that this is slightly high, especially when CSS has 18" PR's for $139), for a total of $2075. $275 is not a lot of money when your already close to 2G's invested.


----------



## bsoko2

Ilkka, is there any way to test the HSU 3.3 Turbo with the HSU MBM-12 together? This is what the MBM-12 was made for, use with the HO or 3.3 Turbo. I would be interesting to see how they would rank in the pack as a single unit.

Bill


----------



## Ilkka

ISLAND1000 said:


> Ilkka, will the other remaining test parameters indicate the presence of the "cavitation noise"?


Basically no.



> This cavitation noise would only occurr or correlate to ear splitting spl at higher frequencies. At this extreme level of spl my sub unit would be many times louder than my mains.


That's true. It's not that of a problem in real world use.



> If the surround is producing sounds of it's own, at what frequencies does it occurr?


It's around 8-10th harmonic.


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> I ignored the SDX15" results the first time looking over this data, looking only at the LMS, but now that I do, things get even more interesting. The 15" SDX, with its smaller voice coil and all, can outdo the TC2k from 25hz on up, and two can outdo the 18" LMS in the same frequency range for less money. That's pretty significant me thinks....I wonder why it doesn't suffer from nearly as much compression? It looks like it would be an excellent fit for a LLT, as it could really benefit from the additional clean headroom down low - that would make for a great sub. It would look to be a notch above a TC2k LLT performance wise.


When comparing those results, do remember a few things. The dual 15" TC-2000 had a surround failure. I'm sure it affected the CEA-2010 numbers below ~40-50 Hz. The single 15" TC-2000 had an off-spec driver. I'm sure it affected the CEA-2010 numbers above ~30-40 Hz. It's unfortunate that these things happen, but on the other hand it's the reality, too.



> I dunno, from this preliminary data, it looks like multiples of the SDX would be the better option, no?


It depends what do you mean by better? Distortion and enclosure size wise the LMS is much better.

I would definitely wait for the full results before jumping into conclusions.


----------



## Ilkka

WillyD said:


> And there are a few differences between the tests in the fall and the ones in the spring. Fall, Ilkka used the CE4000 all around. Superior amp, as you know, the 2000 could've definitely used a more powerful amp in the spring. There is at least a 1000W difference between the CE4000 and the t.amp TA2400 MK-X used with the TC-2k. Something tells me that extra 1000W would bump up the TC-2000s CEA-2010 clean output results from the spring just a tad. :whistling:


Around 1 - 1.5 dB more as 2400W vs. 3600W should be. Though it should be noted that not all drivers can take 3600W, even peak. 



> I'll still wait and see the full set of results. The CEA-2010 table isn't enough by itself for me to completely judge a sub. Its neat, but the individual threads tell the real and true story.


Spot on, Willd.


----------



## Ilkka

bsoko2 said:


> Ilkka, is there any way to test the HSU 3.3 Turbo with the HSU MBM-12 together? This is what the MBM-12 was made for, use with the HO or 3.3 Turbo. I would be interesting to see how they would rank in the pack as a single unit.
> 
> Bill


I don't have them anymore so that's not possible. Nor it would give us any new data. You can simply add their SPLs together to see how they would do as a pair. Of course it also depends on what kind of crossover configuration one is using with them.


----------



## Chris Brunhaver

Hi Ilkka,

You didn't happen to measure the amplifier output voltage during the distortion test sweeps, did you? While you are already doing a massive amount of work, this would help settle the debate about how much power is required to really push these DIY sub drivers tot their CEA-2010 distortion limits etc.

As you mentioned, most subs aren't going to do much with anything with that 1.76 dB of gain (going from 2400 watts to 3600 watts). 

Wild,

It's not like you need 7200 watts of power to run a pair of 15" subs to their limits. While I haven't read everything in detail, I think Ilkka used this much power so that clipping etc. was simply not a factor.


----------



## WillyD

> You didn't happen to measure the amplifier output voltage during the distortion test sweeps, did you?



Good Q. Another reason I am critical of not Ilkka, but comparing the spring DIY results to the Fall. I trust the CE-4000 map more than I trust the t-amp, if you know what I mean. 



> As you mentioned, most subs aren't going to do much with anything with that 1.76 dB of gain (going from 2400 watts to 3600 watts).


That is, if the difference was really 2400w to 3600W. 





> Wild,
> 
> It's not like you need 7200 watts of power to run a pair of 15" subs to their limits. While I haven't read everything in detail, I think Ilkka used this much power so that clipping etc. was simply not a factor.


Absolutely, but the amount of power available would most certainly make a difference. You even bring up clipping, which was present when the TC-2000 was tested. I am just calling it like I see it. Its not fair to completely compare the spring 2K results to the Fall SDX results and declare a "winner". And even if one wants to, wait for the full results, and look at the whole picture (as in, not just 25Hz+ performance, but <25Hz performance...you know, where subs are supposed to excel.)



> The CEA-2010 standard defines a new way for measuring and determining the clean maximum output level for a subwoofer. The signal used is a 6.5 cycle long sine burst which allows a safe measurement of the maximum output level. The max SPL is limited by the stepped distortion threshold (allows less distortion for higher harmonics) or the limitations/limiters of the subwoofer itself, which ever is reached first. The standard defines the max SPL normalized to 1 meter distance (half-space) and peak value of the sine burst, but I use the more familiar 2 meter distance and the RMS value of the sine burst. That way these figures are more comparable to the results measured by using the more common sine wave sweep/tone method.


----------



## SteveCallas

Willy said:


> Its the <25Hz performance that concerns me with the SDX


Correct, it's not as good as the TC drivers in low end efficiency, but using it in a LLT would bring up the low end output. The TC2k quasi LLT was cleaner from tuning to 35hz than it was above 35hz due to the port output, so if you start with a driver that trades a bit of cleanliness down low to gain it up top, you should end up with more consistent, low distortion. 



> And since when have you or anyone else cared so much about >25Hz performance from a sub?


Umm, I do like to hear bass in addition to feeling it . The majority of the output of the sub will come from >25hz. <25hz is definitely very significant nowadays, but you gotta have your ducks in a row and have the frequencies we are more sensitive to clean first.



> And there are a few differences between the tests in the fall and the ones in the spring. Fall, Ilkka used the CE4000 all around. Superior amp, as you know, the 2000 could've definitely used a more powerful amp in the spring. There is at least a 1000W difference between the CE4000 and the t.amp TA2400 MK-X used with the TC-2k. Something tells me that extra 1000W would bump up the TC-2000s CEA-2010 clean output results from the spring just a tad.


For sweeps, I would definitely agree. For 6 cycle bursts like were used (I believe?) for the CEA testing, I'm not so sure. Ilkka - was power the limiting factor for the TC2k CEA test above 25hz, or was it distortion?



> The CEA-2010 table isn't enough by itself for me to completely judge a sub





> I would definitely wait for the full results before jumping into conclusions.


Absolutely - we have to talk about something though. I'm neither completely judging a sub nor jumping to any conclusions, I'm simply making observations based on the data presented. 



Ricci said:


> Also how is it that the premium is that BIG? 2 SDX's is about $600 and keep in mind that you need 2 CE4000's at $600 a pop used, (that is actually quite the deal there), that's roughly $1.8k


I disagree. You may need two such amps to extract the bulk of the performance from a LMS 18, but you definitely don't need that much to get the bulk of performance from a SDX. A pair of EP2500s would do it.



Ilkka said:


> Distortion and enclosure size wise the LMS is much better.


From sweeps or from bursts? Isn't burst testing more representative of real world material reproduction?


----------



## WillyD

> Correct, it's not as good as the TC drivers in low end efficiency, but using it in a LLT would bring up the low end output. The TC2k quasi LLT was cleaner from tuning to 35hz than it was above 35hz due to the port output, so if you start with a driver that trades a bit of cleanliness down low to gain it up top, you should end up with more consistent, low distortion.


Not as good in low end efficiency? How about not as good in low end distortion as well, which I suspect. Yeah, the LLT would definitely help. And we can't yet assume the SDX is cleaner up top. With the much more powerful amp, which Ilkka says might would account for 1 to 1.5dB difference in output, the SDX has just 1.7dB more output at 80Hz than the TC-2K. 

If the full results from from Ilkka show it, more specifically the harmonic distortion by component figure, then so be it. 




> Umm, I do like to hear bass in addition to feeling it . The majority of the output of the sub will come from >25hz. <25hz is definitely very significant nowadays, but you gotta have your ducks in a row and have the frequencies we are more sensitive to clean first.


Sure, but my point is, getting clean >25Hz output has never been the issue. If one truly wanted that, they could go with a load of high efficiency 18" pro drivers like B&C or BMS and port them to 25Hz and give them a bunch of power. That'd obliterate any of these subs in >25hz performance. 

And are you suggesting that the TC-2K isn't clean in the frequencies we are more sensitive to? It still put out 114dB from 2m @ 50Hz. I'd say thats pretty significant "clean output", even with the problems Ilkka said the drivers had. 




> For sweeps, I would definitely agree. For 6 cycle bursts like were used (I believe?) for the CEA testing, I'm not so sure. Ilkka - was power the limiting factor for the TC2k CEA test above 25hz, or was it distortion?


Actually, I would say its the other way around. You mentioned compression, yet compression much sooner rear its ugly head with sweeps than it would with bursts. Maybe I am missing somehing...but that sure seems to be the case. For instance, compare the LLT TC-2K's maximum output level done with the 30 second linear sine sweep and compare it to the CEA-2010 max output figures. 

linear sine sweep - ~112.3dB @ 50Hz
6.5 cycle long sine burst- ~ 114.8dB @ 50hz



> Absolutely - we have to talk about something though. I'm neither completely judging a sub nor jumping to any conclusions, I'm simply making observations based on the data presented.


Well, to me it certainly sounded like you were jumping to conclusions and not considering all the facts and the ones yet presented. I am not trying to put down anyone or anything, but one must look at the entire picture. 



> I'm not so sure. Ilkka - was power the limiting factor for the TC2k CEA test above 25hz, or was it distortion?


Thats a good Q. On a somewhat unrelated note, I do remember this post from Ilkka in the spring: http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/35287-post34.html



> One interesting note. The large TC-2000 15" based sonosub was clipping its ~2000W amp at 40 Hz and above. :scared:


----------



## SteveCallas

Willy said:


> Sure, but my point is, getting clean >25Hz output has never been the issue


I agree, but by using these drivers in a LLT configuration, clean output below 25hz to tuning isn't much of an issue either. So which becomes the remaining bottleneck as output increases - the top end or low end? Sensitivity is higher in higher frequencies, so IF one were to start demanding greater than reference levels, the top end would be the bottleneck for a LLT in my eyes, whereas the low end would be the bottleneck for a sealed sub using the same driver *well before *approaching reference levels. Taking overall performance into account, based on this data - without jumping to conclusions - I would imagine a SDX LLT would be slightly more well rounded than a TC2k, and two SDX LLTs would be slightly more well rounded than the LMS PR'd sub. None of this is passionate debate, just observations. 



> And are you suggesting that the TC-2K isn't clean in the frequencies we are more sensitive to? It still put out 114dB from 2m @ 50Hz. I'd say thats pretty significant "clean output", even with the problems Ilkka said the drivers had.


Absolutely, well more capability than most adventurous enthusiasts would ever care to put to use. I'm definitely not trying to say it's lacking, merely that the SDX has a slight advantage in that range. If I felt the TC2k was lacking, I wouldn't recommend it. 



> Actually, I would say its the other way around. You mentioned compression, yet compression much sooner rear its ugly head with sweeps than it would with bursts. Maybe I am missing somehing...but that sure seems to be the case. For instance, compare the LLT TC-2K's maximum output level done with the 30 second linear sine sweep and compare it to the CEA-2010 max output figures.





> Thats a good Q. On a somewhat unrelated note, I do remember this post from Ilkka in the spring


I know the amp clipped during the sweep testing, but I don't believe it clipped during the burst testing. If that's the case, then more power wouldn't necessarily add much to the burst test.


----------



## jmcomp124

Ilkka said:


> I have kept you all under the radar thus far, but I have just completed my fall 2007 subwoofer test session. These are the subwoofers (and one speaker) I tested today. Results and pictures will follow.


Ilkka,
Simplified this post. For the ultra-low/low bass representation with a single number, IMHO, the CEA2010 is using too simplistic an approach by going with Arithmetic means. I suggest going with weighted arithmetic means or simply not using a single number at all. The weights need to be carefully chosen.
-Jai


----------



## jmcomp124

For the motivated reader..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_arithmetic_mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean


----------



## WillyD

> I know the amp clipped during the sweep testing, but I don't believe it clipped during the burst testing. If that's the case, then more power wouldn't necessarily add much to the burst test.


Why don't you believe it did. Just have a lot of faith I guess? Seems to me that it would be a more significant leap of faith to believe the differences in amplifiers wouldn't have affected the results. Even if the amp hadn't clipped or limited the 2K in the burst testing (and we might never know), the differences in upper end efficiency are so relatively small. We're talking about a low bass avg difference of 1.1dB. 

And oddly enough, the CEA-2010 figures for the SDX-15 are quite close (in the higher frequencies) to the simulated output in Unibox. For instance...

Unibox: SDX-15 in 100liters with 3600W= 117.1dB @ 63Hz
CEA-2010: "....................................." = 116.1dB @ 63Hz

A whopping 1dB difference. And what about the TC-2K Quasi-LLT?

Unibox: TC-2K in 270liters tuned to 16.5Hz with 2400W = 114.7dB @ 63Hz
CEA-2010: "..........................................................." = 114.4dB @ 63Hz

.3dB difference. Interesting. 

At any rate, what I'd like to see is the Max output level and power compression graphs for the subs. Those will be just a tad more informative....:nerd:


----------



## Chris Brunhaver

WillyD,

Actually, that is purely coincidental. Unibox doesn't have a significant amount of nonlinear modeling capability and even if it did you'd need more information than just small signal parameters and a simplified excursion model. 

My guess is that TC-2K does quite well down low due to a linear suspension and pretty good motor and not as good up high due to high inductance and big coil (i.e. modulation distortion and eddy currents in the steel etc.). I don't see how Unibox could be predicting this.

-Chris


----------



## DLS

Chris Brunhaver said:


> I don't see how Unibox could be predicting this.



Actualy even far more sophisticated softwares can't predict it. Aside from Linearx's LEAP 5 wich seems to be the best modeling product, I don't see any other soft that can actualy ''see'' or predict nonlinear behavior/compresion at high power levels. TS data of course would be absolutly insufficient for that matter.


----------



## WillyD

I never said it wasn't coincidental. I was just making an observation. Of course I know that Unibox or any other simulation program can't accurate predict distortion limited output...who do you take me for? 



> I don't see how Unibox could be predicting this.


Unibox actually does have the ability to use a couple non-linear parameters, such as L2 and R2, which allow an "improved model of voice coil inductance simulating Eddy currents". So of course Unibox can help to predict how the inductance affects the output in the higher frequencies.


----------



## Ilkka

WillyD said:


> Unibox actually does have the ability to use a couple non-linear parameters, such as L2 and R2, which allow an "improved model of voice coil inductance simulating Eddy currents". So of course Unibox can help to predict how the inductance affects the output in the higher frequencies.


L2 and R2 aren't non-linear parameters per se.


----------



## Ilkka

Chris Brunhaver said:


> Hi Ilkka,
> 
> You didn't happen to measure the amplifier output voltage during the distortion test sweeps, did you? While you are already doing a massive amount of work, this would help settle the debate about how much power is required to really push these DIY sub drivers tot their CEA-2010 distortion limits etc.


Unfortunately not. That would require more sophisticated hardware than just a simple DMM due to burst signals.


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> For sweeps, I would definitely agree. For 6 cycle bursts like were used (I believe?) for the CEA testing, I'm not so sure. Ilkka - was power the limiting factor for the TC2k CEA test above 25hz, or was it distortion?


For both TC2k and SDX15 it was power (but only at and above 50 Hz actually).



> From sweeps or from bursts?


Both but it's more obvious when looking at the THD sweeps.



> Isn't burst testing more representative of real world material reproduction?


Yes.


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> I know the amp clipped during the sweep testing, but I don't believe it clipped during the burst testing. If that's the case, then more power wouldn't necessarily add much to the burst test.


Both the T.Amp TA2400 and the Crown CE4000 clipped during the burst testing at 50 Hz and above. I wasn't able to clip the CE4000 during the sweeps though.


----------



## Ilkka

Guys,

I'm not any more following some of the reasoning done by a few of you. That's maybe because I have seen all the data and you haven't.

But when it comes to TC2k/SDX15/LMS-5400 distortion, it's already posted here. Nothing actually changed during the GP/high power measurements. You can see the "pattern" already there.

The TC2k is more cleaner, has less compression and has more output than the SDX15, at every frequency (assuming same amp is used of course).

Now can you please stop fighting until you see the rest of the data? :time-out:


----------



## WillyD

Ilkka said:


> L2 and R2 aren't non-linear parameters per se.


I read this in a paper by Klippel. 



> To investigate the effect of each nonlinearity separately and to find
> the dominant source of distortion the following nonlinearities
> might be switched on and off during simulation:
> • motor nonlinearity due to Bl(x)
> • mechanical suspension nonlinearity due to Cms(x)
> • inductance nonlinearity due to Le(x)
> • para-inductance nonlinearity due to L2(x)
> • losses from eddy currents due to R2(x)
> • reluctance force (electromagnetic drive)
> • adiabatic compression in enclosure CAB(Pbox)
> • adiabatic compression of rear enclosure CR(Prear)
> • radiation distortion (Doppler effect)


----------



## WillyD

> Now can you please stop fighting until you see the rest of the data?


Not fighting, just discussing. I'll stop though. You've told me what I wanted to know anyways. :T


----------



## SteveCallas

Willy said:


> Why don't you believe it did. Just have a lot of faith I guess?


Lol, no, I didn't mean "I don't believe" as in "that's not true", I meant it as in "if I'm not mistaken" or "I could be wrong but".



Ilkka said:


> For both TC2k and SDX15 it was power (but only at and above 50 Hz actually).





> Both the T.Amp TA2400 and the Crown CE4000 clipped during the burst testing at 50 Hz and above


Wow, I never would have expected the Crown to clip based on all the fuss made about it - at least not before the drivers got fried, even on a burst test. Good stuff.



Ilkka said:


> The TC2k is more cleaner, has less compression and has more output than the SDX15, at every frequency (assuming same amp is used of course).
> 
> Now can you please stop fighting until you see the rest of the data?


I apologize Ilkka, in all honesty there was no ill intent behind this discourse, just trying to make heads and tails from some of this initial data. We've been tempted with the goods but won't see the full results for some time, so we gotta make due. TC2k is more capable at every frequency - got it.


----------



## Guest

I'm not familiar with the non-linear calculations performed by Unibox, perse, but the addition of L2 and R2 does supply a certain unsophisticated non-linear prediction model. If you take your standard LR-2 model and identify that Le, Le2, and Re2 are functions of displacement x, then you can approximate values using a truncated power series expansion. I don't believe, however, that this model scales well with frequency, which is unfortunate because frequency is a very key component of inductance. 

It's a shame that the Klippel analyzer does not support such measurement, but the model it does use does give good insight to inductance variation with coil position.

edit: I am extraordinarily surprised by the performance of the TC 2K. From posts in the other thread, it seems that distortion measurements at virtually every harmonic are, more or less, identical to the SDX15. Price is another story, but the performance is impressive.


----------



## thxgoon

ISLAND1000 said:


> It's revealing that four out of the top five subs use TC Sounds drivers, that the top six subs are DIYers, and eight out of the top ten subs are DIYers.
> This list contains some of the best commercial subs available and the DIY subs outperfomed them in these tests. We are at a point where DIY knowledge, available software modeling programs, and cooperation on these forums enable the hobbyest to make for themselves a sub that can outperform commercial units and probably do it for less money per performance dollar.
> Congratulations all around. :T


Agreed!!!

Not that anyone else needs to say this but wow! Good job! These are great tests that just cannont be found anywhere else. Totally unbiased and honest raw data. If only the entire world of AV enthusiasts could see this... thanks!!!


----------



## cjwhitehouse

> Isn't burst testing more representative of real world material reproduction?





Ilkka said:


> Yes.


This is a very definite statement. Are there are scientific papers around to back it up?

While you might be able to make a case for this from music signals, I maintain that typical heavy HT material can contain bass energy that lasts for a lot longer than 6.5 cycles. What about the machines emerging scene from WOTW?

One of the factors affecting subwoofer performance is how it responds to continuous loading... voice-coil heating, power supply depletion etc. The amplifier is one of the most critical components in a powered subwoofer. When measuring amplifier power outputs, the hifi industry long ago learnt to eschew the use of "peak music power output" figures and adopted a more realistic "1kHz continuous RMS power" measure instead. Why are we now saying that a continuous test is less relevant to a subwoofer's performance?

As I see it, the CEA-2010 clean output limits are fine for giving you a relative scale by which to compare different subwoofers in a consistent manner. But it's just a number, derived from a wholly artificial signal. How does it relate to what you could expect a given subwoofer to deliver on real program material?

Actual program material is somewhere between tone-burst and continous sine-sweep. I would say that music is probably nearer the tone-burst end and HT material rather closer to the continuous end but this is debatable. You takes your pick as to which you think gives you a better handle on real-world program performance.


----------



## Guest

Excellent post CJ. I've thought for some time now that the burst testing advocated by the CEA standard has become outdated with current demands on sub performance. How a sub responds to continuous loading is one of the defining tests which identifies flaws in build and design. Many of the torture test discs I use in listening sessions are ones which contain intense long cycle bass for detecting audible signs of stress. Loud deep sustained organ music as well as WOTW have been known to bring out the worst in a few subs which otherwise have acceptable looking graphs. I'd suggest its not a fine line between tone bursts for music and continuous sine waves for HT. Testing for both conditions would be ideal.

Peak long demands for energy stress all the system components and are much more revealing of how well the amplifier and driver can handle sustained loads in real world listening environments. As the sub stresses under such demands the ability of the sub components to dissipitate heat not only causes compression but audible swings in FR and distortion. The remedy one reads often is to add more subs but that just skirts the real problem IMO.

The downside to this kind of testing is greater risk of damaging the DUT. On the other hand if a sub cannot handle near reference levels of WOTW type bass, that is invaluable information indeed.


----------



## Ilkka

WillyD said:


> I read this in a paper by Klippel.


Sorry, I meant that they are not non-linear parameters in Unibox. Meaning that Unibox doesn't do any non-linear modeling. If you add input power, all simulated variables stay linear. So the effect of L2 and R2 is only valid at low power levels.


----------



## ISLAND1000

It seems these deep honest discussions regarding sub testing needs a final resolution. 
If the CEA-2010 standard is not a true representation of sub duty because it s too light weight and
continuous sine-sweeps is too strenuous what then would be the "perfect" subwoofer test? Who will set the standard?
I think this forum should be the responsible party. We have our scientists, engineers, builders, tinkerers, and DIYers. What better diverse group of enthusiasts exists?

For my first suggestion for an improved standard I propose:

PINK NOISE 10Hz to 100Hz @ 105 DB for 60 seconds or until compression or stress shows.

Next . . . . . ?

Discussion . . . .?

Oh, I know . . . . . we need a new thread for this . . . . . Sonnie?


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> Wow, I never would have expected the Crown to clip based on all the fuss made about it - at least not before the drivers got fried, even on a burst test. Good stuff.


It has nothing to do with CE4000 being bad or anything like that. It's just that these drivers can take HUGE amounts of power at those frequencies when using short/burst signal. I'm assuming you are not familiar with car audio SPL contests? There it is quite the norm to use several tens of thousand of watts per driver. And they are using even longer signal than 6.5 cycle burst.

There is an old test made by Richard Clark where he tested an AA Brahma and a JL Audio 13W7. They both could take 32 kW at 80 Hz when using burst signal.

The peak spec for the LMS-5400 is 8000 watts, but I'm guessing that's way way underrated. It should be able to take 40-50 kW (above ~65-70 Hz) or more in a small sealed enclosure when using burst signal (when distortion is not limited naturally). 



> I apologize Ilkka, in all honesty there was no ill intent behind this discourse, just trying to make heads and tails from some of this initial data. We've been tempted with the goods but won't see the full results for some time, so we gotta make due.


I understand it but making wrong conclusions is often worse than no conclusions at all.


----------



## Ilkka

cjwhitehouse said:


> This is a very definite statement. Are there are scientific papers around to back it up?
> 
> While you might be able to make a case for this from music signals, I maintain that typical heavy HT material can contain bass energy that lasts for a lot longer than 6.5 cycles. What about the machines emerging scene from WOTW?
> 
> One of the factors affecting subwoofer performance is how it responds to continuous loading... voice-coil heating, power supply depletion etc. The amplifier is one of the most critical components in a powered subwoofer. When measuring amplifier power outputs, the hifi industry long ago learnt to eschew the use of "peak music power output" figures and adopted a more realistic "1kHz continuous RMS power" measure instead. Why are we now saying that a continuous test is less relevant to a subwoofer's performance?
> 
> As I see it, the CEA-2010 clean output limits are fine for giving you a relative scale by which to compare different subwoofers in a consistent manner. But it's just a number, derived from a wholly artificial signal. How does it relate to what you could expect a given subwoofer to deliver on real program material?
> 
> Actual program material is somewhere between tone-burst and continous sine-sweep. I would say that music is probably nearer the tone-burst end and HT material rather closer to the continuous end but this is debatable. You takes your pick as to which you think gives you a better handle on real-world program performance.


Hi Roger,

Sorry for being so vague, I was just making some quick replies last night.

I'm not familiar with any scientific papers around this subject. Dr. Floyd Keele's AES papers regarding his 6.5 cycle tone burst might have some, but unfortunately I have no access to them.

Of course there is music and HT material that lasts longer than 6.5 cycles. No one has ever claimed otherwise. But it is a whole different case to say that the max SPL tests performed using this short signal represent better what happens with real program material. The majority of the most demanding HT material nowadays contains rumble similar to narrow-band pink noise, and shorter thumps/explosions/hits/bursts alone or more usually on top of this rumble. Signals similar to straight sine waves are VERY rare. Especially the ones that last longer than one second or more. I can not think of more than a couple movie sound tracks that contain this kind of signals. Music actually has more of them; organ and some modern synthesized type of kind comes to mind. 

So IMO it's fair to say that these burst SPL tests represent better the real world situation. Also if you measure the sound pressure levels with an SPL meter in your room during a movie scene, it's these short thumps and explosions that create the highest numbers, not this constant rumble or straight sine waves.

Notwithstanding the above, I don't try to "sell" the CEA-2010 as a perfect and only solution when it comes to subwoofer performance testing, as the original purpose of this standard probably was. I have always taken and will always take longer sine sweeps additionally to these burst tests. They provide a lot more information about compression and power handling then the CEA-2010. But the sine sweep method isn't good nor safe way to measure maximum SPL capability, especially at higher frequencies. 

As you can see from majority of my own and Roger's measurements, the 5 dB sweep level increment used by both of us isn't small enough to show the absolute maximum SPL at all frequencies. Usually it's pretty useful at low-end due to higher compression but up higher the highest sweep doesn't usually compress that much and the true max SPL remains as a mystery. Using a smaller sweep level increment doesn't help either because then it becomes very unsafe to squeeze that last bit of output at those critical frequencies (low impedance means high current through the VC, but not much cooling due to low excursion).

This isn't a problem with CEA-2010's burst signals and individual test frequencies. I can safely and accurately measure the maximum clean (remember the stepped distortion threshold) SPL at each 1/3 octave wide test frequency, which basically covers the whole passband of the subwoofer. One number per each test frequency covers two variables. With regular sine sweep one has to look at two graphs: SPL and distortion.

IMO the CEA-2010 is a valuable addition to my battery of tests. It doesn't tell the full story but helps to understand how the subwoofer reacts to shorter, more program material type of, signals. It is really interesting to compare the maximum sound pressure levels/compression measured with these two different methods/test signals. One more variable to keep on eye on. Currently it is also the only safe and accurate method for measuring the absolute maximum SPL at every frequency in the subwoofer passband. Of course it doesn't bother me that also (additionally to Floyd Toole and Don Keele) two of the most highly regarded and noted subwoofer reviewers, Keith Yates and Tom Nousaine, use this same or very similar burst test as a part of their subwoofer reviews.


----------



## Ilkka

ISLAND1000 said:


> For my first suggestion for an improved standard I propose:
> 
> PINK NOISE 10Hz to 100Hz @ 105 DB for 60 seconds or until compression or stress shows.


So are you trying to find at what level and after what period of time the subwoofer breaks?  Please see my explanation above.


----------



## SteveCallas

Ilkka said:


> It has nothing to do with CE4000 being bad or anything like that. It's just that these drivers can take HUGE amounts of power at those frequencies when using short/burst signal. I'm assuming you are not familiar with car audio SPL contests? There it is quite the norm to use several tens of thousand of watts per driver. And they are using even longer signal than 6.5 cycle burst.


But at the same time I read cases of frying voice coils with a few thousand watts. I believe it was Brian Bunge's Tumult that practically blew up with less than 4000 watts. I guess other issues were at play.



cj said:


> While you might be able to make a case for this from music signals, I maintain that typical heavy HT material can contain bass energy that lasts for a lot longer than 6.5 cycles. What about the machines emerging scene from WOTW?


Well the statement was "more representative". Sure, there are certain examples of continuous bass tones in both movies and music, but they are much fewer in number compared to something more similar to the burst testing.


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> But at the same time I read cases of frying voice coils with a few thousand watts. I believe it was Brian Bunge's Tumult that practically blew up with less than 4000 watts. I guess other issues were at play.


Can you give me more details? What kind of enclosure, amp, signal etc.?

I seriously doubt thermal power handling was the issue unless he played straight sine waves at high output levels.


----------



## noah katz

Re burst vs. continuous tone testing, an interesting test for short term compression would be to feed a high level signal and observe the reduction in output vs. time.

Perhaps it could be automated to automatically stop after, say, 4 dB compression, which would save the VC from frying.

"But at the same time I read cases of frying voice coils with a few thousand watts."

The key issue is time. Dan Wiggins said IIRC that feeding 1000 W to a Tumult raised the VC temp a couple of hundred degrees after only a few sec.


----------



## Ilkka

noah katz said:


> Re burst vs. continuous tone testing, an interesting test for short term compression would be to feed a high level signal and observe the reduction in output vs. time.
> 
> Perhaps it could be automated to automatically stop after, say, 4 dB compression, which would save the VC from frying.


Based on what I have noticed during my tests, that kind of short term compression happens only in the very beginning of the signal, say less than 500-1000 ms. If a driver can hold the output level for a full second, it can hold it for another 5 or 10 seconds more. And there we go again with the usefulness of that kind of signal. How many music pieces or movie sound tracks contain that kind of signals?



> The key issue is time. Dan Wiggins said IIRC that feeding 1000 W to a Tumult raised the VC temp a couple of hundred degrees after only a few sec.


That's true. And that's why 6.5 cycles doesn't burn any voice coils.


----------



## SteveCallas

Ilkka said:


> Can you give me more details? What kind of enclosure, amp, signal etc.?


Did a search and found it was actually Bob, not Brian.


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> Did a search and found it was actually Bob, not Brian.


Yeah, I remember that. That's obviously a mechanical failure. Most probably he bottomed out (VC/former hit the back plate) the driver since the dust cap has been torn off. He was using a passive radiator design.

I have yet to seen a picture of a thermally damaged VC on these forums. Every single one has been a mechanical failure.


----------



## ISLAND1000

Ilkka said:


> So are you trying to find at what level and after what period of time the subwoofer breaks?  Please see my explanation above.


I'm certainly not suggesting a test be run till break point only to determine uhmmm . . . . . a drivers level of what might be called "severe service" , a point where stress becomes noticeable.


----------



## WillyD

> I have yet to seen a picture of a thermally damaged VC on these forums. Every single one has been a mechanical failure.


I've been saying the same thing for a while now. The only person I've heard from who has supposedly fried a VC in a home setting is Chuck, and that was a DVC. Well now folks understand the real deal about the VCs on these modern drivers and that they are quite hard to fry. :coocoo:



> There is an old test made by Richard Clark where he tested an AA Brahma and a JL Audio 13W7. They both could take 32 kW at 80 Hz when using burst signal.
> 
> The peak spec for the LMS-5400 is 8000 watts, but I'm guessing that's way way underrated. It should be able to take 40-50 kW (above ~65-70 Hz) or more in a small sealed enclosure when using burst signal (when distortion is not limited naturally).


:unbelievable:


----------



## bobgpsr

Ilkka said:


> Yeah, I remember that. That's obviously a mechanical failure. Most probably he bottomed out (VC/former hit the back plate) the driver since the dust cap has been torn off. He was using a passive radiator design.
> 
> I have yet to seen a picture of a thermally damaged VC on these forums. Every single one has been a mechanical failure.


Yep no burnt VC smell. I had earlier (other times before it blew) thought that I had been hearing extra noises flapping/rattling from the Tumult at louder levels. Since others also have have mech failure problems with the Tumult MK II's (the Chilean built ones) that might indicate that they had a design weakness unlike the original MK I's. No problems so far with the CSS SDX15 that replaced it. Though I am more carefull with the driving amp. I am now using the soft limiters of the Mackie M1400 pro amp and only one channel of the amp for driving the sub. Nice to have some subwoofage capability present even though can't get reference level in the big basememt room it is in. Better WAF this way anyway.


----------



## Exocer

bobgpsr said:


> Yep no burnt VC smell. I had earlier (other times before it blew) thought that I had been hearing extra noises flapping/rattling from the Tumult at louder levels. Since others also have have mech failure problems with the Tumult MK II's (the Chilean built ones) that might indicate that they had a design weakness unlike the original MK I's. No problems so far with the CSS SDX15 that replaced it. Though I am more carefull with the driving amp. I am now using the soft limiters of the Mackie M1400 pro amp and only one channel of the amp for driving the sub. Nice to have some subwoofage capability present even though can't get reference level in the big basememt room it is in. Better WAF this way anyway.


Sorry to take this thread off topic...but bob, have you noticed any subjective differences between the two drivers?


----------



## bobgpsr

Exocer said:


> Sorry to take this thread off topic...but bob, have you noticed any subjective differences between the two drivers?


Other than no extra unwanted noises? No. The SDX15 just disappears normally, like a well integrated/calibrated sub should. Extra deep LFE from movies or low bass from organ music is "there" like it should be. So I feel that not noticing (rattling, buzzes, port chuffing) the subwoofer is good. 

So for me a subjective good criteria, is not noticing the speakers or the subwoofer. If I crank up the sub level above calibration -- then I notice the sub.


----------



## Exocer

bobgpsr said:


> Other than no extra unwanted noises? No. The SDX15 just disappears normally, like a well integrated/calibrated sub should. Extra deep LFE from movies or low bass from organ music is "there" like it should be. So I feel that not noticing (rattling, buzzes, port chuffing) the subwoofer is good.
> 
> So for me a subjective good criteria, is not noticing the speakers or the subwoofer. If I crank up the sub level above calibration -- then I notice the sub.


Well that sounds brilliant! I had given some thought to sending my Tumult to Robot Underground for a re-cone, but am having a hard time deciding if i should trade-in the Tumult and go with an SDX-15 or get my Tumult fixed for $110 to complete my subjective SQ thread. :bigsmile:

Honestly I may go the re-cone route, since theres already so much objective information about the SDX-15 at this point. Thanks again Ilkka :T


----------



## ISLAND1000

Ilkka said:


> The peak spec for the LMS-5400 is 8000 watts, but I'm guessing that's way way underrated.


 I have yet to push my own LMS to it's limits. I'm hesitant (more careful) using my Crown XTi 4000 since I HAVE already fried a 400 watt VC accidentally switching the wires from the LMS to a Cadence 18" with the 400 watt rating without first shutting down the amp. Everyone makes mistakes in the heat of excitement
A fried VC is hard to see unless you remove the damaged parts. I'm leaving the the Cadence speaker as is while I decide whether or not to have it reconed.
The Cadence voice coil of course had bottomed out and then blew the dust cap off just before the VC separated from the cone and tore off almost all of the suspension spider. The VC remains attached to the wire leads and the surround was not torn from the basket or damaged. 
I checked the VC for electrical continuity and of course there was none.


----------



## Chris Brunhaver

I would strongly recommend against using Robot underground for reconing your Tumult. I've met Patrick before and he seems like a nice guy and everything. However, he's using the wrong coil design. XBL^2 design are sensitivity to using the right coil length and he's not even close. This totally screws up the BL curve (creating a huge BL peak in the center 5 mm or so of travel).

I'd definitely talk to Scott at www.ficaraudio.com (or in his forum here). I believe that he still stocks that coil. If not, he could use the REXXX aluminum coil (but with a single soft spider).


----------



## Exocer

Chris Brunhaver said:


> I would strongly recommend against using Robot underground for reconing your Tumult. I've met Patrick before and he seems like a nice guy and everything. However, he's using the wrong coil design. XBL^2 design are sensitivity to using the right coil length and he's not even close. This totally screws up the BL curve (creating a huge BL peak in the center 5 mm or so of travel).
> 
> I'd definitely talk to Scott at www.ficaraudio.com (or in his forum here). I believe that he still stocks that coil. If not, he could use the REXXX aluminum coil (but with a single soft spider).


Very glad my post caught your attention...Thanks a lot.

I'll wait to hear back from Fi.


----------



## mojomike

Hi Ilkka. How are the prospects for that 13Ultra test? Do you think you will get a chance any time soon?


----------



## JimP

mojomike said:


> Hi Ilkka. How are the prospects for that 13Ultra test? Do you think you will get a chance any time soon?


Ditto.

Your test are highly respected and others including myself are very interested in how it objectively test out. Especially in the distortion area.


----------



## Ilkka

mojomike said:


> Hi Ilkka. How are the prospects for that 13Ultra test? Do you think you will get a chance any time soon?


Does this answer to your question? :bigsmile:


----------



## mojomike

Yes indeedy! :yay: That's what I'm talkin' about.


----------



## Ilkka

The lists below now contain these new entries:

SVS PB12-NSD new
SVS PB13-Ultra 10 Hz
SVS PB13-Ultra 15 Hz
SVS PB13-Ultra 20 Hz
SVS PB13-Ultra sealed

I believe Ultra's four tuning frequencies/settings go without saying. The "PB12-NSD new" is the latest revision of this model. Performance of the new PB13-Ultra in all settings, but especially in 20 Hz and 15 Hz, is very convincing. From all the subwoofers I have tested thus far (using the CEA-2010 test), in addition to the JL Audio Fathom f113, the new Ultra is the only commercial subwoofer that can even slightly tremble the "top 10" ruled by the all mighty DIY subwoofers.

Pictures from today (starting from #93)

Yes, I was able to blow the internal main fuse of the PB13-Ultra - twice. :innocent: It didn't seem to like my 30 second long sine sweeps at extreme levels (I was expecting this based on AV Talk's measurements though). More dynamic signals like the CEA-2010 bursts didn't cause any troubles, even at extreme levels. It shouldn't be possible to blow the fuse using regular program material. This "problem" doesn't have anything to do with the other PB13-Ultra amp problem (shut-down due to bad batch of components combined with sagging 110 V voltage). There are no reports of shutting down 230 V versions of the new Ultra. 

Alphabetical list:










"Low-bass Avg. 40 Hz - 63 Hz" list:










"Ultra low-bass Avg. 20 Hz - 31.5 Hz" list:










"Avg. 20 Hz - 80 Hz" list (operating range of a normal/good subwoofer):


----------



## funky_waves

I would like to see how the css sdx15 stacks up in a 200L vented. tuned to about 18hz. Maybe I'll have to send you one(Fw 15.1)  the singe tc2000 ported seems to outdo the dual tc2000 sealed. SDX 15 would do the same?


----------



## Sonnie

The PB13-Ultra is definitely no slouch... nice!


----------



## Ilkka

funky_waves said:


> I would like to see how the css sdx15 stacks up in a 200L vented. tuned to about 18hz. Maybe I'll have to send you one(Fw 15.1)


I think that can be arranged. But isn't 200 liters slightly small? Around 300L sounds better. :bigsmile:



> the singe tc2000 ported seems to outdo the dual tc2000 sealed. SDX 15 would do the same?


The dual TC-2000 140L sealed had a broken surround (other driver), so its results below 50 Hz do not represent its real performance. In reality it would score a little bit higher than the dual SDX15 140L sealed.

Also the single TC-2000 90L had an off-spec driver, so its performance either doesn't represent a "proper" TC-2000 in a 90L sealed enclosure. Hopefully I will be able to test these again some day.


----------



## mojomike

Those Ultra results are really amazing, especially in the 16hz tuning, although actually SVS calls it 15hz.


----------



## Ilkka

mojomike said:


> Those Ultra results are really amazing, especially in the 16hz tuning, although actually SVS calls it 15hz.


LOL, good catch, Mike! I'm so accustomed to writing "16 Hz" based on older SVS subs, that I wrote it again even though I thought of writing 15 Hz. Doh! :coocoo:

It's corrected now.

Although I haven't yet checked the real measured tuning frequencies. I will promise to do that soon.


----------



## funky_waves

Ilkka said:


> I think that can be arranged. But isn't 200 liters slightly small? Around 300L sounds better. :bigsmile:



Yah I tried to keep it on the smaller side without loosing too much 200L seemed to be reasonable. I may offer a larger one with a little lower tuneing later on.


----------



## Ilkka

funky_waves said:


> Yah I tried to keep it on the smaller side without loosing too much 200L seemed to be reasonable. I may offer a larger one with a little lower tuneing later on.


Yeah, I was just joking. Not everyone can or want to accommodate a 300 liter enclosure.


----------



## SteveCallas

You're a testing machine Ilkka :clap: This performance coming from a commercial sub is pretty impressive. What are your thoughts on the close proximity of the three ports both to each other and to the surronding walls of the enclosure?


----------



## Exocer

Wow, that thing is impressive.

Can't wait to see the THD charts etc.


----------



## jmcomp124

Ilkka said:


> The lists below now contain these new entries:


The guys at SVS are champs :T. I was in the market for 4 Ultra-13s when I "for some reason" (blame it on some of the awesome folks in the avs DIY forum and some incredible folks!! here at shack) got pulled into DIY and the dual LMS-5400 with dual PRs was born :thud:.
I have to agree, those Ultra-13s in their price range simply look amazing. Kudos to SVS!


----------



## ISLAND1000

Nothing else has the versatility of the PB-13 Ultra. That's a very clever idea, just closing off ports to obtain differing performance. And now the frequency response and spl is excellent.


----------



## DLS

I wonder, what's the situation with port noises in 10Hz mode? Since only 1/3 ot port area is effective....:dontknow:


----------



## WillyD

> Hopefully I will be able to test these again some day.


I do hope so!


----------



## mojomike

DLS said:


> I wonder, what's the situation with port noises in 10Hz mode? Since only 1/3 ot port area is effective....:dontknow:


The Ultra would seem to be a little underported when used in 10hz tune, but that is offset by the fact that in the frequencies where the ports are working the hardest (10hz), there is very little content.

To me, the sweet spot is the 15hz tune. The extension seems just about as good as in 10hz tune, and yet the sub gives up very little efficiency compared with the 20hz tune.


----------



## tweakophyte

Hi-

Just chiming in to echo the "great job!" comments. :bigsmile: This is all good stuff.

Am I missing something or have the details of each sub not been posted yet?

Thanks again!


----------



## WillyD

> Am I missing something or have the details of each sub not been posted yet?


They have not, but Ilkka will get around to it eventually. Maybe by Thanksgiving, eh?


----------



## brucek

Since Finland doesn't celebrate Thanksgiving, are you saying he'll never post them......:whistling:


----------



## WillyD

brucek said:


> Since Finland doesn't celebrate Thanksgiving, are you saying he'll never post them......:whistling:


That crossed my mind, but since his fans are overwhelmingly from the US, I thought the statement still worked. :whistling:


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> You're a testing machine Ilkka :clap: This performance coming from a commercial sub is pretty impressive. What are your thoughts on the close proximity of the three ports both to each other and to the surronding walls of the enclosure?


Of course it would be better to have more room around them (both outside and inside), but without actually testing that kind of version, it will be impossible to say what kind of effect it has.

Here are some pics of the internals (photos by "kweezer"). As you can see, ports tilt 90 deg. upwards.


----------



## Ilkka

WillyD said:


> They have not, but Ilkka will get around to it eventually. Maybe by Thanksgiving, eh?


I won't make any promises but we'll see. :bigsmile:


----------



## Guest

hey guys

my first post!...:wave:

i have been going back and forth on what sub(s) to buy for my HT

i had planned on getting a Fathom F113 until the great reviews for the (much cheaper) SVS PB13 started rolling in

for the same money as the F113, i can pick up two PB13's and really make my wife mad

now i run into this great thread and notice that the new SVS PB12 NSD is quite a performer too...??

is it me, or does its performance seem to be "pretty close" to the bigger subs

my biggest concern with the PB13 is it's HUGE size

anyway, trying to get the most bang for the buck...why not pick up a pair of NSD's for less money than one PB13?

thanks!

brad

JVC RS1 projector
Prismasonic lens with Lumagen scaler for 2:35 CIH "Scope" setup
SMX 120" 2:35 screen
Marantz 8001 
Triad Inwall "Silver" speakers (7.1)
Toshiba XA2 HD dvd player


----------



## ISLAND1000

Wow! Is that number 18 wire inside that Ultra?


----------



## ISLAND1000

bwhitmore said:


> hey guys
> 
> my first post!...:wave:
> 
> i have been going back and forth on what sub(s) to buy for my HT


Hi Brad, glad you could make it.

There's miles of threads to read about which sub best fits your circumstances. Enjoy. 
Don't leave out DIY (do it yourself) either.


----------



## Ron Temple

bwhitmore said:


> hey guys
> 
> my first post!...:wave:
> 
> i have been going back and forth on what sub(s) to buy for my HT
> 
> i had planned on getting a Fathom F113 until the great reviews for the (much cheaper) SVS PB13 started rolling in
> 
> for the same money as the F113, i can pick up two PB13's and really make my wife mad
> 
> now i run into this great thread and notice that the new SVS PB12 NSD is quite a performer too...??
> 
> is it me, or does its performance seem to be "pretty close" to the bigger subs
> 
> my biggest concern with the PB13 is it's HUGE size
> 
> anyway, trying to get the most bang for the buck...why not pick up a pair of NSD's for less money than one PB13?
> 
> thanks!
> 
> brad
> 
> JVC RS1 projector
> Prismasonic lens with Lumagen scaler for 2:35 CIH "Scope" setup
> SMX 120" 2:35 screen
> Marantz 8001
> Triad Inwall "Silver" speakers (7.1)
> Toshiba XA2 HD dvd player


Hey Brad,

I'm new to this forum too, but specifically about the PB12NSD vs the U13...The 12NSD is a very capable sub, but the U13 is special. The SQ improvement is very significant. Size is a problem...just can't break the laws of physics. 

Good luck...


----------



## Guest

Ron Temple said:


> Hey Brad,
> 
> I'm new to this forum too, but specifically about the PB12NSD vs the U13...The 12NSD is a very capable sub, but the U13 is special. The SQ improvement is very significant. Size is a problem...just can't break the laws of physics.
> 
> Good luck...


thanks, after doing some more digging i noticed that the PB13 actually isn't that much bigger than the 12NSD

however, the PB13 is slightly "bigger" on the wallet...


----------



## ssabripo

Ron Temple said:


> ..but the U13 is special.


_special_, eh? :scratchhead:

It performed very well in both objective and subjective tests, but "special"?? in what sense? just curious


----------



## mojomike

Sherv, you may have answered your own question. "It performed very well in both objective and subjective tests." It is the best performing commercial sub ever tested by Ilkka or AV Talks. In Ilkkas's tests, only a handful of some really powerful DIY subs topped it. 

Sounds special to me, no?


----------



## Sonnie

I'd say it's special... 
*Spoiler* 



we are going to be giving one away here at the Shack. :nerd:


----------



## Ilkka

bwhitmore said:


> hey guys
> 
> my first post!...:wave:
> 
> i have been going back and forth on what sub(s) to buy for my HT
> 
> i had planned on getting a Fathom F113 until the great reviews for the (much cheaper) SVS PB13 started rolling in
> 
> for the same money as the F113, i can pick up two PB13's and really make my wife mad
> 
> now i run into this great thread and notice that the new SVS PB12 NSD is quite a performer too...??
> 
> is it me, or does its performance seem to be "pretty close" to the bigger subs
> 
> my biggest concern with the PB13 is it's HUGE size
> 
> anyway, trying to get the most bang for the buck...why not pick up a pair of NSD's for less money than one PB13?
> 
> thanks!
> 
> brad
> 
> JVC RS1 projector
> Prismasonic lens with Lumagen scaler for 2:35 CIH "Scope" setup
> SMX 120" 2:35 screen
> Marantz 8001
> Triad Inwall "Silver" speakers (7.1)
> Toshiba XA2 HD dvd player


Hi Brad,

The PB12-NSD is a great performer, especially in its price range, but it's still quite in a different league than the PB13-Ultra. I would easily choose single Ultra over dual NSD's.

The JL Audio Fathom f113 is also an incredible sub. Really small, but great performance. Duals of these can embarrass pretty much any single commercial sub in the world. Even a single one is enough for many.


----------



## JimP

Ikka,

Ignoring size, in your opinion (ignoring measurements), how does the F113 compare to the PB13-Ultra?


----------



## Exocer

Ron Temple said:


> Hey Brad,
> 
> I'm new to this forum too, but specifically about the PB12NSD vs the U13...The 12NSD is a very capable sub, but the U13 is special. The SQ improvement is very significant. Size is a problem...just can't break the laws of physics.
> 
> Good luck...


Wow, Ron Temple....great to have you aboard!

Its been what..a few years? lol.

Anyway, I believe you when you say there are subjective differences between the two...sometimes measurements can't capture those differences...or we're unable to find a relationship between objective measurements and subjective impressions...


----------



## ssabripo

mojomike said:


> Sherv, you may have answered your own question. "It performed very well in both objective and subjective tests." It is the best performing commercial sub ever tested by Ilkka or AV Talks. In Ilkkas's tests, only a handful of some really powerful DIY subs topped it.
> 
> Sounds special to me, no?


sorry, but not really. It is an ultra high excursion 13" driver, in a relatively large EBS enclosure. Take for example the F113, which is also a 13" driver but in a pretty smalled sealed......and it has close numbers in the sub 35hz range despite the obvious disadvantage of the alignment.

I guess I personally wouldn't qualify something "special" because it is the latest sub on the market and has some excellent numbers. Now show me that thing doing numbers close to the TC2K LLT, and then I may consider it "_special_" :nerd:

No biggie though....it still is a great sub for a commercial offering no doubt.:T


----------



## mojomike

ssabripo said:


> sorry, but not really. It is an ultra high excursion 13" driver, in a relatively large EBS enclosure. Take for example the F113, which is also a 13" driver but in a pretty smalled sealed......and it has close numbers in the sub 35hz range despite the obvious disadvantage of the alignment.
> 
> I guess I personally wouldn't qualify something "special" because it is the latest sub on the market and has some excellent numbers. Now show me that thing doing numbers close to the TC2K LLT, and then I may consider it "_special_" :nerd:
> 
> No biggie though....it still is a great sub for a commercial offering no doubt.:T


There are a couple of ways you can look at this. Let's compare the 13Ultra and the f113 again. While the 13Ultra does have an advantage in it's alignment, the f113 has a huge advantage in it's amp power, resulting in it's costing twice as much. Still, _it would take two f113's (at 4 x the cost) to match a 13Ultra from 31.5hz down._ I'm not sure which numbers you are looking at because I see the 13Ultra beating out the f113 by about 6 db everywhere below 35hz. Do you consider 6 db insignificant? Don't you think that could make a bit of a difference in HT applications?

Also, could you point out how the TC2K LLT clearly beats out the 13Ultra? I see very close numbers at 20hz, the TC2K with higher numbers below that and the 13Ultra with higher output above that point. Who is the clear victor?


----------



## Jeje2

Ilkka said:


> I can not just simply add it to the list because I haven't tested its CEA-2010 limits. But based on other previous measurements, its performance was just a tad below the BK Monolith-DF.





Vaughan100 said:


> But will you test the PB10 to confirm ? The next question I guess is when ?


I have subtlety tried to offer my PB10-ISD for retesting (was the frst tested PB10 unit), but as we all are well aware, Ilkka has a lot of work with every single sub - so sofar Ilkka hasn't showed interest. And I can understand Ilkka well - with the workload he wants to increase the diversity more...

But Ilkka if you change your mind ... :wave:


----------



## ssabripo

mojomike said:


> There are a couple of ways you can look at this. Let's compare the 13Ultra and the f113 again. While the 13Ultra does have an advantage in it's alignment, the f113 has a huge advantage in it's amp power, resulting in it's costing twice as much. Still, _it would take two f113's (at 4 x the cost) to match a 13Ultra from 31.5hz down._ I'm not sure which numbers you are looking at because I see the 13Ultra beating out the f113 by about 6 db everywhere below 35hz. Do you consider 6 db insignificant? Don't you think that could make a bit of a difference in HT applications?
> 
> Also, could you point out how the TC2K LLT clearly beats out the 13Ultra? I see very close numbers at 20hz, the TC2K with higher numbers below that and the 13Ultra with higher output above that point. Who is the clear victor?


I dont have the foggiest Idea where you are getting your numbers...perhaps I'm missing something, but here are the baselines:









the Pb13 has a 3dB advantage at 31hz, 1dB at 25hz, is lagging 1dB at 20hz, and it goes down from there....lagging almost 7dB at 16hz and 10db at 12hz. This is not even close in the lower extensions my friend.

As for the fathom, yes, the Ultra has better performance from 35 and below as it should....it is a ported sub and it is a larger volume. Notice in the midbass how the fathom already surpasses it (40-65hz).

again, nobody is disputing the outstanding job the Pb13 has brought.....but to me, "_special_" it is not! I guess I just have higher standards on what is and what is not special.:T


----------



## Ron Temple

Hi Sherv, it's special in comparision to every other SVS product I've heard...the numbers are great, but it's in another league in SQ. My only direct comparision with other high end subs are the DD15 and DD18...both great subs, but, to my ears, neither do it for me like the U13. It may or may not be special compared to some of the monsters you've built or heard...that's fine. Compared to the SVS 12NSD, 12Plus and 12Ultra, the U13 is "special" and not like my one legged, one eyed dog either :1eye:.


----------



## ssabripo

I suppose.

I'm really itching to see how some of the epik offerings perform as well, particularly the tower and conquest. Needless to say, the commercial landscape has changed dramatically in the past 2 years, and that's a good thing.


----------



## mojomike

ssabripo said:


> I dont have the foggiest Idea where you are getting your numbers...perhaps I'm missing something, but here are the baselines:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Pb13 has a 3dB advantage at 31hz, 1dB at 25hz, is lagging 1dB at 20hz, and it goes down from there....lagging almost 7dB at 16hz and 10db at 12hz. This is not even close in the lower extensions my friend.
> 
> As for the fathom, yes, the Ultra has better performance from 35 and below as it should....it is a ported sub and it is a larger volume. Notice in the midbass how the fathom already surpasses it (40-65hz).
> 
> again, nobody is disputing the outstanding job the Pb13 has brought.....but to me, "_special_" it is not! I guess I just have higher standards on what is and what is not special.:T


As far as the comparison between the 13Ultra and the TC DIY, there's no question the TC is stronger from 20hz on down. Above that, the 13Ultra is stronger. A clear winner? I can't pick. Which would sound better with real material? I can't tell.

Obviously your definition of "special" is pretty high. Does any commercial sub meet your standard?


----------



## Ron Temple

ssabripo said:


> I suppose.
> 
> I'm really itching to see how some of the epik offerings perform as well, particularly the tower and conquest. Needless to say, the commercial landscape has changed dramatically in the past 2 years, and that's a good thing.


I've spoken to a couple of the Conquest owners...Dennis owned a 12U and his brother an U/2...he's pretty impressed to say the least. I think his biggest challenge is which EQ solution he goes with. Ross ain't talking, but he's the guy with the U13s and a Conquest. I'm pretty jazzed about the Epik products too...just don't have the ballz to bring one home currently .


----------



## ssabripo

mojomike said:


> Obviously your definition of "special" is pretty high. Does any commercial sub meet your standard?


not really, and thus the reason for DIY for me.:nerd:

I'm really hoping to see some numbers on the conquest, but even then, at $1599, some serious damage can be made with that, if space permits of course.

I mean, who would rather have a PB13 or Conquest instead of:

4 x 18" Ficar IB drivers (30mm Xmax, 0.61Qts, etc, $209/ea), a QSC PLX or EP2500, DEQ2496, in an infinite baffle or sealed enclosure?

But I digress....:devil:


----------



## Guest

> the Pb13 has a 3dB advantage at 31hz, 1dB at 25hz, is lagging 1dB at 20hz, and it goes down from there....lagging almost 7dB at 16hz and 10db at 12hz. This is not even close in the lower extensions my friend.
> 
> As for the fathom, yes, the Ultra has better performance from 35 and below as it should....it is a ported sub and it is a larger volume. Notice in the midbass how the fathom already surpasses it (40-65hz).
> 
> again, nobody is disputing the outstanding job the Pb13 has brought.....but to me, "special" it is not! I guess I just have higher standards on what is and what is not special.


ssabripo, you need to look at the numbers for the ultra with a 15hz tune and compare to the lms5400 100L. They arent that far off below 20hz either.. At 12.5hz its down 5 db but at 16hz its down only 1.5 db. Considering the current cost of the lms and the fact that you need 3600 watts to get these numbers, how can the ultra not impress you? :dizzy: . I'm sure you have high standards but these numbers are very good. I have a conquest sitting in my living room and i'm not so sure it will blow the ultra away..


----------



## Sonnie

Special is a subjective term guys... so it can be special for some and maybe not for others... not a biggie either way.

Here's the differences... in the lower region it's pretty significant.


----------



## Guest

DIY = time, plus half the numbers you guys quote is for some used or bargain closeout special deals on equipment. Standard costs for DIY can be fairly high as well, especially if you want high performance in a reasonable size.. and 4 subs? How reasonable is that. I can't think of anywhere i could put an IB setup in here. And if i had the room i'd probably spend 100 hours between designing/building everything (thats an expensive project if you ask me) SVS is a single sub in a decent sized box. Sure if you build a system with 4x as much drivers and more power, its going to be louder. 
I think it is impressive the kind of work they put into DIY, but is it impressive from a consumer point of view? Not really. To hire someone to build that for me would probably cost 10k or more.


----------



## ssabripo

mwoofer said:


> ssabripo, you need to look at the numbers for the ultra with a 15hz tune and compare to the lms5400 100L. They arent that far off below 20hz either.. At 12.5hz its down 5 db but at 16hz its down only 1.5 db. Considering the current cost of the lms and the fact that you need 3600 watts to get these numbers, how can the ultra not impress you? :dizzy: . I'm sure you have high standards but these numbers are very good. I have a conquest sitting in my living room and i'm not so sure it will blow the ultra away..


welcome.

first, you are talking about apples and oranges here. Why are you even looking at the LMS5400? Look at the numbers for the TC2K 270L ported enclosure and look at the numbers posted. Sonnie just put a graph up for it that shows you the differences.

second, how can the numbers of the ultra not _impress _me? Nobody says I'm not impressed for what it does, but why get your your feelings hurt if I don't think of it as special?? ****, with $650 I was able to build something that will romp it in pretty much category I'm sure:








but don't take my word for it (the performance of this was closer to an older Ultra/2, which I would presume would still be considerably better than a single PB13):
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=246758&postcount=198
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=246452&postcount=167

Third, if you have a conquest sitting in your living room, we would love to see some pics and measurements! there are few owners out there, and nobody has taken some measurements, so that would be a great help to the community!  However, I will have to firmly disagree with you on "not sure it will blow it away" thing.....physics are physics, and unless there is a magic leprechaun pumping extra dB's on the Ultra, at the end of the day you are talking a 13" driver with 3 x 3.5" ports and 750W, versus an ultra high excursion high power 18" driver, with 2 x 6" ports, much bigger enclosure, and 1000W....... You do the math. 



mwoofer said:


> DIY = time, plus half the numbers you guys quote is for some used or bargain closeout special deals on equipment. Standard costs for DIY can be fairly high as well, especially if you want high performance in a reasonable size.. and 4 subs? How reasonable is that. I can't think of anywhere i could put an IB setup in here. And if i had the room i'd probably spend 100 hours between designing/building everything (thats an expensive project if you ask me) SVS is a single sub in a relatively small box in decent sized box. Sure if you build a system with 4x as much drivers and more power, its going to be louder.
> I think it is impressive the kind of work they put into DIY, but is it impressive from a consumer point of view? Not really. To hire someone to build that for me would probably cost 10k or more.


you misunderstood. You don't have to go with 4 subs to beat a single PB13....those 4 subs I mentioned previously in an IB would *annihilate *dual or even triple Ultras my friend. That was just a point of reference I used to show what $1500 can do for you. And no, all parts are not "bargain" hunting and "used" parts, etc. You can go an buy them at your convinience.

for many of us, the "time" spent doing that is time in this hobby anyways...so we don't count that as cost. I have no idea where you are getting your figures from (10K or more, "more power and drivers", etc). With $1500, I can build a single small sealed or ported box as well that will still best the Ultra.


Again, the thing you guys are fixated on, is that the ultra is a phenomenal sub.....as are others like the conquest and Tower. I personally don't think it is "special", as neither are the Epik offerings. No big deal. It is a good sub, and its good to see performance at this level.


----------



## mojomike

mwoofer said:


> ssabripo, you need to look at the numbers for the ultra with a 15hz tune and compare to the lms5400 100L. They arent that far off below 20hz either.. At 12.5hz its down 5 db but at 16hz its down only 1.5 db. Considering the current cost of the lms and the fact that you need 3600 watts to get these numbers, how can the ultra not impress you? :dizzy: . I'm sure you have high standards but these numbers are very good. I have a conquest sitting in my living room and i'm not so sure it will blow the ultra away..


If the Conquest doesn't blow the Ultra away in some way, I would be shocked. I don't think it will blow it away from the standpoint of SQ because the Ultra really does sound superb. It would seem that it should easily be able to excede output of the Ultra at all frequencies.


----------



## Ilkka

ssabripo said:


> (the performance of this was closer to an older Ultra/2, which I would presume would still be considerably better than a single PB13)


Sherv,

Do you have any hard data/evidence to prove either of these claims? 

Here are the Ultra/2 numbers measured by Ed Mullen. They are 10% THD instead of CEA-2010, but almost each is amp limited, meaning max output. Compare these to PB13-Ultra numbers.

20 Hz Tune 10% THD Ground Plane 2M:
16 Hz: 89.5 dB
18 Hz: 100.7 dB (8.4% THD amp limited)
20 Hz: 102.8 dB (9.4% THD amp limited)
22 Hz: 104.9 dB (7.7% THD amp limited)
25 Hz: 106 dB (6.2% THD amp limited)
30 Hz: 109.5 dB (7.9% THD amp limited)
40 Hz: 113.1 dB
50 Hz: 112.2 dB

I would love to measure your DIY subwoofer.


----------



## ssabripo

Ilkka said:


> Sherv,
> 
> Do you have any hard data/evidence to prove either of these claims?
> 
> Here are the Ultra/2 numbers measured by Ed Mullen. They are 10% THD instead of CEA-2010 but almost everyone is amp limited, meaning max output. Compare these to PB13-Ultra numbers.
> 
> 20 Hz Tune 10% THD Ground Plane 2M:
> 16 Hz: 89.5 dB
> 18 Hz: 100.7 dB (8.4% THD amp limited)
> 20 Hz: 102.8 dB (9.4% THD amp limited)
> 22 Hz: 104.9 dB (7.7% THD amp limited)
> 25 Hz: 106 dB (6.2% THD amp limited)
> 30 Hz: 109.5 dB (7.9% THD amp limited)
> 40 Hz: 113.1 dB
> 50 Hz: 112.2 dB


no unfortunately Ilkka....two years ago I didn't get a chance to measure this sucker, and unfortunately no longer do I have it. :hissyfit: I told you, you need to move to the US and leave that forsaken place you are in!!! :bigsmile: If so, you could have had all kinds of fun with many DIY speakers around here.


----------



## mojomike

It's appears that this discussion is breaking down into yet another DIY sub vs. commercial sub debate. These never seem to come to any kind of satisfactory resolution, but there are some conclusions we can gather.

1. A no-holds-barred DIY sub can beat out the best commercial sub in objective tests.
2. DIY subs are simply not everyone's cup of tea whether due to time involved, esthetics, or lack of skill.
3. There are no commercial subs yet tested that would meet Sherv's definition of "special".


----------



## Sonnie

Yeah... good points... we should probably try to focus on the topic of the thread before Ilkka gets out the hammer... addle:


----------



## Guest

ahhh sorry didnt read the above post.. must have been while i was typing. sorry guys


----------



## ISLAND1000

I just LOVE the energy these guys bring to the forum! I mean they're sooo intent on making their point they even forget to spellcheck.
Make it happen guys.


----------



## ssabripo

mojomike said:


> It's appears that this discussion is breaking down into yet another DIY sub vs. commercial sub debate. These never seem to come to any kind of satisfactory resolution, but there are some conclusions we can gather.
> 
> 1. A no-holds-barred DIY sub can beat out the best commercial sub in objective tests.
> 2. DIY subs are simply not everyone's cup of tea whether due to time involved, esthetics, or lack of skill.
> 3. There are no commercial subs yet tested that would meet Sherv's definition of "special".


agreed!
:nerd:


----------



## Exocer

ssabripo said:


> I suppose.
> 
> I'm really itching to see how some of the epik offerings perform as well, particularly the tower and conquest.


You and me both my friend. I find it hard to believe that the Tower, at $1099, would not give the U13 a good fight "objectively". The Conquest will be bananas!:bigsmile:

Anyone else noticing similarities between the Epik subs and some DIY projects? Big long throw woofers, lots of porting, large enclosures


----------



## SteveCallas

I can only speak for myself, but I am extremely impressed wth what this new SVS can do. I'm not impressed with what it can do for the money, but I'm extremely impressed with what it can do with its driver size, enclosure size, porting solution, and plate amp. I never expected it to come as close to the TC2k quasi LLT in the low end as it did and beat it in the higher frequencies - also, if the AV Talk measurements are a good idea of how Ilkka's will look, the top end stays noticably cleaner. I know of no other commercial sub that comes close to that type of performance for the dollar, so in that respect I think it is pretty special. 

Now when I look at it comparing it against any other solution, not just commercial, it doesn't fair as well. You can get a LOT more displacement for $1400. Additionally, the limiting in the amp used down low to protect the sub noticably degrades the transient response, reaching all the way up to the 30hz range. The TC2k was significantly better in that regard. Lastly, I'll never be a fan of the concept of reducing port area to achieve a lower tune - that's about as backwards as you can get. The low end numbers look nice in the lower tuning modes, but the onset of audible chuffing becomes that much more of a reality.


----------



## WillyD

> I know of no other commercial sub that comes close to that type of performance for the dollar, so in that respect I think it is pretty special.


The Epiks, easily.

And what the PB13 can do for its enclosure size/porting solution doesn't impress me. It is a pretty big sub as far as commercial subs are concerned. Around 200gross liters, right? What the real achievement looks like to me, is the driver and its linearity (from the AVtalk graphs). Also its efficiency. 



> I never expected it to come as close to the TC2k quasi LLT in the low end as it did and beat it in the higher frequencies


Um, when I compare the PB13 in 15Hz mode to the TC2K/270, it only beats it in clean output from 31.5Hz to 50Hz. And only then the average difference is 0.6dB. Yet the TC-2K has an advantage from 12.5Hz to 20Hz of an average 2.2dB.

Now if one is looking at the 20Hz mode, well then one could just take a TC2K and put it in 200liters and tune it to 20Hz and then make up the difference. 

The qusi-LLT isn't _that_ much larger than the PB13. About 3ft^3 larger, eh?


----------



## SteveCallas

Ok, so I'm hearing "Conquest", "Tower", and "Epik" for the first time and thinking what are these? Do a little searching, and AA is selling finished commercial subs. When did this happen? $1600 for a ported 18" sub with a tuning that I would imagine is infrasonic - not bad, not bad at all. 105db at 16hz from 2 meter IN ROOM at 11% distortion doesn't seem very impressive, but I'm not sure how well Nousaine's numbers correlate to Ilkka's. In room, I'd expect that to be over 110db, but what can you do at this pont.


----------



## Guest

TN has a strong room mode at 32Hz in his room. So achieving high output at 16Hz with low distortion is very very difficult to do in his room since 2nd order harmonic distortion products would be unusually high. His results really cannot be compared to outdoor results.

The Conquest must be tuned somewhere in the 15Hz area (give or take 1-2Hz). Compared to a 15Hz mode with dual 3.5" ports, it would have approximately 3x the port cross-sectional area, and even more compared to a single 4" port! According to Chad, the Conquest has output of 120db or higher from 25Hz on up, measured outside @ 1m distance. So it should be able to fairly comfortably handle a sweep level of 115db measured @ 2m over that frequency range.


----------



## Exocer

Peter Marcks said:


> TN has a strong room mode at 32Hz in his room. So achieving high output at 16Hz with low distortion is very very difficult to do in his room since 2nd order harmonic distortion products would be unusually high. His results really cannot be compared to outdoor results.
> 
> The Conquest must be tuned somewhere in the 15Hz area (give or take 1-2Hz). Compared to a 15Hz mode with dual 3.5" ports, it would have approximately 3x the port cross-sectional area, and even more compared to a single 4" port! According to Chad, the Conquest has output of 120db or higher from 25Hz on up, measured outside @ 1m distance. So it should be able to fairly comfortably handle a sweep level of 115db measured @ 2m over that frequency range.


:raped: wow, just wow. Can't wait for Ilkka to get his hand one one...

Just out of curiosity, ~ what tuning point could one achieve from plugging one of the Conquest's ports?


----------



## Guest

chad hasn't given anyone the specs for his driver (well at least not anyone who would squeal) So there is no way of knowing exactly, although i'm sure a competent speaker designer could probably come up with a good guess. And i don't think ikka is going to test one of these because the amps only run 110/120volts.


----------



## SteveCallas

Actually, you don't need to know the driver T/S parameters to calculate tuning, only the enclosure size and port length. Chad will sell a bunch of these subs to those who want to buy commercially, but he won't really be able to sell any to DIY fans......I wonder if he'd sell just the driver to us :daydream:


----------



## mojomike

SteveCallas said:


> Lastly, I'll never be a fan of the concept of reducing port area to achieve a lower tune - that's about as backwards as you can get. The low end numbers look nice in the lower tuning modes, but the onset of audible chuffing becomes that much more of a reality.



Steve, the port limitations don't seem to be a problem at the 15hz tune. You'll notice that there is very little loss of efficiency in this tune compared with the 20 hz tune. I haven't seen any port chuffing in either 20 or 15hz tuning. As for the 10hz mode, I doubt a single 3.5" port could be sufficient. There is a marked loss of efficiency in this mode and I'm sure it's underported here. Chuffing here could be a problem, but it should only show up with very low frequencies.


----------



## Ilkka

Peter Marcks said:


> The Conquest must be tuned somewhere in the 15Hz area (give or take 1-2Hz).


Sorry but I don't agree.  When looking at the external measurements, the internal net volume can't be much more than around 240 liters (1" walls, 2" baffle, bracing, driver, ports). That means 15 Hz tuning would require around 2 meter long ports!

I'm guessing that the Conquest is tuned much higher, maybe around 20-22 Hz. 



Exocer said:


> :raped: wow, just wow. Can't wait for Ilkka to get his hand one one...


I will test them as soon as Chad gets some 230V amps.



> Just out of curiosity, ~ what tuning point could one achieve from plugging one of the Conquest's ports?


If assuming native is ~22 Hz, then single port would be ~15 Hz.


----------



## Ilkka

WillyD said:


> And what the PB13 can do for its enclosure size/porting solution doesn't impress me. It is a pretty big sub as far as commercial subs are concerned. Around 200gross liters, right?


The net internal volume of the PB13-Ultra is around 120 liters. So it's more than twice smaller than the 270L LLT.



> The qusi-LLT isn't _that_ much larger than the PB13. About 3ft^3 larger, eh?


:rofl2: I've seen them both in reality. Believe me, the 270L LLT is MUCH larger (footprint of course is pretty similar).

When I saw the PB13-Ultra for the first time (and still), I actually thought it looked really small. It's much smaller (height) than, say, the older PB12-Plus/2.


----------



## chengbin

IIkka, do you mind putting the f113 driver in a large enclosure such as the size of a PB13U and test it? Thanks. I'm sure the result will be very interesting.


----------



## DLS

chengbin said:


> IIkka, do you mind putting the f113 driver in a large enclosure such as the size of a PB13U and test it? Thanks. I'm sure the result will be very interesting.


I was just thinking about the same idea :yes: 13w7 driver in PB13's type of design. 
Having working with the 13w7 car audio driver (I would guess this one in fathoms is similar), maybe big LLT won't work well in terms of SQ. But something like 130-150L tuned to 20 or below Hz may be a pleasant surprise :scratchhead:


----------



## SteveCallas

If a driver is designed to work best in a small sealed enclosure, that typically means it has a very low Qts, which means it won't work well in a large ported design, as the low end will be way too peaky. If you make the enclosure just the right size for a low frequency tuning, you end up with not enough volume to use proper porting.


----------



## DLS

SteveCallas said:


> If a driver is designed to work best in a small sealed enclosure, that typically means it has a very low Qts, which means it won't work well in a large ported design, as the low end will be way too peaky. If you make the enclosure just the right size for a low frequency tuning, you end up with not enough volume to use proper porting.


Actually, if my analogy with the car version of W7's is right, then Qts isn't that small at all - 0,448. I could guess its a little over 100L VAS is no good for ''real'' LLT, but simulations shows pretty good results in let's say 150L. In this case Fb could be 20 or even less Hz and the graphs looks good, no peakyness. The port area I think would be almost enough while keeping the first port resonance high enough not to be a concern.
The only thing I have doubts about is the acceptable level of GD.
I'll do some modeling to check again if the old calculations I've done for this driver confirm my thoughs above.


----------



## WillyD

> I'm guessing that the Conquest is tuned much higher, maybe around 20-22 Hz.


Thats what I thought as well. 



> The net internal volume of the PB13-Ultra is around 120 liters. So it's more than twice smaller than the 270L LLT.


Wow, I had no idea that it was only ~120liters net. Kind of hard to believe!


----------



## chengbin

SteveCallas said:


> If a driver is designed to work best in a small sealed enclosure, that typically means it has a very low Qts, which means it won't work well in a large ported design, as the low end will be way too peaky. If you make the enclosure just the right size for a low frequency tuning, you end up with not enough volume to use proper porting.


That's not true. if JL wanted to, they could of build a enclosure that allows the driver to extend flat to 5Hz!! But they didn't because it would be inappropriate. http://home.jlaudio.com/pdfs/AbsoluteSound.pdf. Read the last page. I think if some DIYers wanted to, they should be able to get it to extend flat to 10Hz easily. Then measure it, the results will be very interesting.


----------



## Ilkka

Sorry guys, I'm too excited (and drunk :jiggy: :thud: ) because of Kimi's World Championship (Formula 1 to all of you Americans  ) that I can not answer to your questions right now. I'll tackle them tomorrow.

Forza Kimi!! Forza Ferrari!! :clap:


----------



## ISLAND1000

Listen to him . . . . . "he's too drunk" !! Our test man . . . . too drunk!! What's this world coming too . . . . and who's this KIM person . . . . . have WE given her an OK?

I dunno Ilkka . . . . . we might be looking for your replacement soon . . . . . craigsub, you still out there???? LOL


----------



## Ilkka

ISLAND1000 said:


> Listen to him . . . . . "he's too drunk" !! Our test man . . . . too drunk!! What's this world coming too . . . . and who's this KIM person . . . . .


http://www.formula1.com/
http://www.ferrariworld.com/FWorld/fw/index.jsp



> have WE given her an OK?


Her???



> I dunno Ilkka . . . . . we might be looking for your replacement soon . . . . . craigsub, you still out there???? LOL


:coocoo:


----------



## SteveCallas

> That's not true. if JL wanted to, they could of build a enclosure that allows the driver to extend flat to 5Hz!! But they didn't because it would be inappropriate.


Yeah, ok :sarcastic: If they piled on enough EQ to get their sub flat to 5hz, max headroom while staying flat to 5hz would be well under 90db - what's the point in that? 



> Actually, if my analogy with the car version of W7's is right, then Qts isn't that small at all - 0,448. I could guess its a little over 100L VAS is no good for ''real'' LLT, but simulations shows pretty good results in let's say 150L. In this case Fb could be 20 or even less Hz and the graphs looks good, no peakyness. The port area I think would be almost enough while keeping the first port resonance high enough not to be a concern.
> The only thing I have doubts about is the acceptable level of GD.
> I'll do some modeling to check again if the old calculations I've done for this driver confirm my thoughs above.


20hz tuning and a 4" port is not a LLT, far from it. And maybe I'm out of the loop, but I don't believe JL has ever released the TS parameters of the driver used in the sub in question.


----------



## chengbin

SteveCallas said:


> Yeah, ok :sarcastic: If they piled on enough EQ to get their sub flat to 5hz, max headroom while staying flat to 5hz would be well under 90db - what's the point in that?


I'm very sure they mean without EQ boosts, but like incredibly large enclosures with multiple ports tuned really low, or other ways to boost bass without EQ.


----------



## Guest

From what I have been told, the driver used in the Fathom and the Gotham employs a similar motor to the W7 with more BL, more excursion, and more power handling (probably via a larger coil). If that's the case (without too much mass), that would push the Q down a bit and make it more suitable for a small, sealed enclosure.

But no, I've never seen any measured parameters. Maybe someone should take theirs out and test the driver itself, thoroughly.


----------



## SteveCallas

> I'm very sure they mean without EQ boosts, but like incredibly large enclosures with multiple ports tuned really low, or other ways to boost bass without EQ.


That's not gonna happen. I'm using a 7' tall, 650 liter enclosure with an 18" driver, and there's no way even that could be tuned and stay flat to 5hz. The port length would be far too long, and no driver can displace enough air to naturally stay flat that low.

You'd need multiples of drivers in a SLLT as wel as some potent room gain. Or even more drivers in an IB and plenty of EQ.


----------



## chengbin

Is there any EQ boost on the F113? I don't think so, but I'm not 100% sure.
BTW, that's a HUGE sub you're using. WOW. The PB13, with "only" 120 liter enclosure, is very big to me. 600 liters, my...


----------



## chengbin

How do you calculate the length and width of a port for a certain frequency?


----------



## mojomike

chengbin said:


> Is there any EQ boost on the F113? I don't think so, but I'm not 100% sure.
> BTW, that's a HUGE sub you're using. WOW. The PB13, with "only" 120 liter enclosure, is very big to me. 600 liters, my...


You can bet that the f113 has built-in EQ boost. Woofers in relatively small sealed boxes will have a natural roll starting fairly high up. For the f113 to have a flat response to below 20hz, it must have EQ. It is part of why it need such a powerful amp.


----------



## DLS

SteveCallas said:


> 20hz tuning and a 4" port is not a LLT, far from it. And maybe I'm out of the loop, but I don't believe JL has ever released the TS parameters of the driver used in the sub in question.


150L, 16Hz Fb, 5" port - that's what I had come with some time ago. F3 is 26Hz, FR looks good and smooth :bigsmile:.
And again I'm asuming the car and home versions of W7 being identical.
Actually, Steve, maybe that's not a "real" LLT, but doing such designs I'd never happen to run into your theory (exellent work btw :T) since recently.


----------



## noah katz

"If a driver is designed to work best in a small sealed enclosure, that typically means it has a very low Qts, which means it won't work well in a large ported design, as the low end will be way too peaky."

A driver optimized for sealed has a higher Q for two reasons:

1) High Mms (which raises Q) will be needed to get a reasonably low Fc

2) Being a single-mass system, it will be overdamped with low Q; vented systems need extra damping to control the second mass (port air/PR)


----------



## chengbin

I thought so too. Does the Gotham have EQ boost? It has the same FR as the f113. Is the gotham just 2 W7 13 drivers in an enclosure? If it is, then why is it 3 times the price of a f113?


----------



## Egil

chengbin said:


> I thought so too. Does the Gotham have EQ boost? It has the same FR as the f113. Is the gotham just 2 W7 13 drivers in an enclosure? If it is, then why is it 3 times the price of a f113?


If I remember correctly, the Gotham has different drivers. 

EQ boost? Yes.


----------



## chengbin

JL designed another 13.5 inch driver?


----------



## Egil

> Originally Posted by msmith_JL
> The Gotham is larger in volume than two f113's... and it is therefore a bit more efficient than twin f113's... and it uses a specifically engineered variant of the 13.5-inch subwoofer optimized for the larger box volume... and therefore makes the same output with less total power than twin f113's.


So it's the same driver - with a few changes , it seems 


Btw, great work Ilkka! :T It's always a blast reading your tests, and see how the different subwoofers fare against eachother


----------



## mojomike

chengbin said:


> Does the Gotham have EQ boost? It has the same FR as the f113.


Pretty much any sealed sub which can show a flat anechoic response is using EQ.


----------



## ISLAND1000

Linkwitz showed a long time ago that any sealed system has an FR that drops at a predictable 6db rate. Using an EQ to flatten or even GAIN spL as the frequency drops is an easy electronic fix.
What's wrong with EQing a system to gain lower end, the distortion remains low even below 20Hz with the LMS.
If it's OK to use the BFD to adjust (EQ) for room anomolies or an active crossover or a Zobel, it should be good enough to EQ a subs lower end. It's the future for subs. Subs should be getting smaller not bigger.


----------



## ISLAND1000

Ilkka said:


> http://www.formula1.com/
> http://www.ferrariworld.com/FWorld/fw/index.jsp
> 
> Her???
> 
> 
> :coocoo:


Illka I apaologize. I thought I was being cute not crazy. Congratulations to Kimi! I saw a few short clips of the race, he did an awesome job. :clap:

ps I hope your day after drunk is not too bad and hope you'll be feeling better soon. :yay:


----------



## Ricci

The 13W7 looks decent in about 240L tuned to 15hz with a 6" port. This seems to be about the lowest that you can tune it and still get decent port area.


----------



## Guest

noah katz said:


> "If a driver is designed to work best in a small sealed enclosure, that typically means it has a very low Qts, which means it won't work well in a large ported design, as the low end will be way too peaky."
> 
> A driver optimized for sealed has a higher Q for two reasons:
> 
> 1) High Mms (which raises Q) will be needed to get a reasonably low Fc
> 
> 2) Being a single-mass system, it will be overdamped with low Q; vented systems need extra damping to control the second mass (port air/PR)


Yes, but you can use a driver with a surprisingly low Q in a sealed enclosure with very impressive results. How do you overcome the need to add mass to drop Fs? Increase BL and drop Qes/Qts which will make your target Qtc achievable in a slightly smaller enclosure.


----------



## mojomike

ISLAND1000 said:


> Linkwitz showed a long time ago that any sealed system has an FR that drops at a predictable 6db rate. Using an EQ to flatten or even GAIN spL as the frequency drops is an easy electronic fix.
> What's wrong with EQing a system to gain lower end, the distortion remains low even below 20Hz with the LMS.
> If it's OK to use the BFD to adjust (EQ) for room anomolies or an active crossover or a Zobel, it should be good enough to EQ a subs lower end. It's the future for subs. Subs should be getting smaller not bigger.


Your right. There is nothing wrong with that. It's been done successfully for years. Velodyne, Paradigm, JL, SVS(SB12-Plus), etc., etc. It will usually call for more power and drivers with longer excursions to do it without winding up with very limited output down deep.


----------



## Ilkka

chengbin said:


> IIkka, do you mind putting the f113 driver in a large enclosure such as the size of a PB13U and test it? Thanks. I'm sure the result will be very interesting.


That might be possible but not probable. At the moment I can't do any testing due to cold weather (and it's likely that it won't be better any time soon). Also I'm not sure how JL Audio would like about that...

Maybe some day I will test the car version of the 13W7 in a ported box. So many woofers, so little time.


----------



## Ilkka

chengbin said:


> Is there any EQ boost on the F113? I don't think so, but I'm not 100% sure.


It definitely has. No way it could have such flat and well extended frequency response without some serious low frequency boost(s). Oh wait, you haven't seen the FR yet. 

Well I can tell you that the -6 dB frequency is ~18 Hz. It doesn't have a natural 12 dB/oct. slope though.


----------



## Ilkka

ISLAND1000 said:


> Linkwitz showed a long time ago that any sealed system has an FR that drops at a predictable 6db rate.


Small correction. The rate is 12 dB/octave.

Dipole is 6 dB/octave.


----------



## Ilkka

I noticed that I haven't posted any teasers yet. :heehee:

Well here we go. A few frequency responses that I really like (for small/mid-sized rooms). Can you guess which ones they are (they contain a very subtle hint)?  Neither of them has any 'external' EQ.


----------



## chengbin

SVS PB13 sealed? None of the subs you tested had such "flat" response.


----------



## Ilkka

chengbin said:


> SVS PB13 sealed? None of the subs you tested had such "flat" response.


Those two graphs represent a FR of two separate subwoofers. The other one is commercial, the other is DIY.


----------



## Sonnie

PB13 15Hz tune and PB13 20Hz tune.


----------



## chengbin

Oh, now I have to look at the DIYs.
No, I haven't found that sub with that FR graph like that. The closest one I found is DIY Chorus XP3 clone. 
BTW to sonnie, if you haven't read the AVTalk's GP FR graph, I'll tell you right now SVS PB13 20Hz tune will stay rule flat till 19 to 20Hz. 15Hz tune is not as flat down low, but it's definitely not a -6dB @ 20Hz. The sealed tune looks more like the second graph, because the sealed PB13's -3dB point is 22Hz.


----------



## Ilkka

Sonnie said:


> PB13 15Hz tune and PB13 20Hz tune.


Sorry, Sonnie. No win.


----------



## Sonnie

Hmmm... HSU VTF-3 :huh:


----------



## chengbin

Is it the PB13 sealed or DIY Chorus XP3 clone for any of the graph?

HSU VTF-3 looks close.


----------



## Ilkka

Guys,

These are from my newest round of testing. So no HSUs or XP3 clones...

You can't find these frequency responses from my previous results. You just have to use your wits to figure them out.


----------



## Sonnie

The comment "(for small/mid-sized rooms)" kind of got me thinking something not so terribly powerful, but still decent.


----------



## chengbin

thanks for that hint.


----------



## Ilkka

Sonnie said:


> The comment "(for small/mid-sized rooms)" kind of got me thinking something not so terribly powerful, but still decent.


Actually I meant the shape of those frequency responses. Slightly tilting down so there is room for some room gain down low.  That should narrow them down pretty well, if you have done your homework.


----------



## Sonnie

BK Extreme :bigsmile:


----------



## chengbin

Gradient Evidence MKII
DIY: DIY CSS SDX15 sealed 100L

If I'm not right, here's some hint for the rest of you guessing. Is it not the JL, or the Velodyne, or the Yamaha for sure. They are not flat enough or does not have flat upper bass capabilities. If memory serves, JL's upper limit is 111Hz, and Velodyne's FR graph wasn't flat, and Yamaha, I doubt it. I'm not too sure of other subs. DIY it has to be the SDX15 sealed. The other ones are too powerful.


----------



## mojomike

The blue one looks a lot like the sealed 13Ultra.


----------



## Ilkka

You're totally off-track now. Please stop for a second and think. :scratchhead:

Note that these are frequency responses only, not maximum output.

Please do not crowd the thread with those guesses (or else I may have to clean it up).


----------



## chengbin

I doubt the TC has such an extended upper bass


----------



## Sonnie

I give up... :dontknow:


----------



## Guest

Ilkka said:


> Sorry but I don't agree.  When looking at the external measurements, the internal net volume can't be much more than around 240 liters (1" walls, 2" baffle, bracing, driver, ports). That means 15 Hz tuning would require around 2 meter long ports!
> 
> I'm guessing that the Conquest is tuned much higher, maybe around 20-22 Hz.


A few minutes after I originally posted, I looked up the dimensions of the Conquest and did some calculations on my own regarding port tuning. I came to the conclusion that it would be very unlikely for the Conquest to be tuned below 20Hz with both ports open. 

At or slightly above a 20Hz tune, it would have 2x the port cross-sectional area vs triple 3.5" ports, and even just a tad more than that vs dual 4" ports. 

Still, not quite an LLT though


----------



## mojomike

C'mon Ilkka. Confirm our ignorance and give us the answer.


----------



## Ilkka

There are partially correct replies but not a fully correct one.


----------



## Ron Temple

Just to keep my mind off the lady with Alzheimers that just came to my door...PB13sealed and SB12Plus...total guess.


----------



## noah katz

If people are assuming these have the most extended LF response, perhaps that's incorrect; some of the subs may have tioo much and give a bloated low bass.

That would leave whatever subs have the inverse of the response of whatever room Ilkka is talking about, which makes it a **** shoot.


----------



## Guest

Ilkka said:


> There are partially correct replies but not a fully correct one.


I'll take a stab: the top graph is the sealed PB13U, and the bottom is the sealed DIY LMS-5400.


----------



## Ilkka

Peter Marcks said:


> I'll take a stab: the top graph is the sealed PB13U, and the bottom is the sealed DIY LMS-5400.


Close but no cigar, as you Americans say.


----------



## jmcomp124

Ilkka said:


> I noticed that I haven't posted any teasers yet. :heehee:
> 
> Well here we go. A few frequency responses that I really like (for small/mid-sized rooms). Can you guess which ones they are (they contain a very subtle hint)?  Neither of them has any 'external' EQ.


My guess...
The first graph is the LMS-5400 sealed.
The second is the JLf113. 
You said no external EQ, which does not rule out JL's built-in internal EQ. 
:whew:


----------



## Guest

Ilkka said:


> Close but no cigar, as you Americans say.


Sorry, flip what I had said: the top graph is the sealed DIY LMS-5400, and the bottom graph is the sealed PB13U.


----------



## Guest

Peter Marcks said:


> A few minutes after I originally posted, I looked up the dimensions of the Conquest and did some calculations on my own regarding port tuning. I came to the conclusion that it would be very unlikely for the Conquest to be tuned below 20Hz with both ports open.
> 
> At or slightly above a 20Hz tune, it would have 2x the port cross-sectional area vs triple 3.5" ports, and even just a tad more than that vs dual 4" ports.
> 
> Still, not quite an LLT though


According to what Chad Kuypers told me in a recent telephone conversation, the Conquest is tuned to less than 20hz, but I'll leave it to him to share the exact frequency if he so chooses...

Ross


----------



## Ilkka

Peter Marcks said:


> Sorry, flip what I had said: the top graph is the sealed DIY LMS-5400, and the bottom graph is the sealed PB13U.


:fireworks1: :fireworks2:

We have a winner! Peter has just won a bag full of bragging rights on all HT forums.


----------



## Guest

HAHA, thank you thank you 

Cheers to myself, Ilkka, and the Ferrari driver from Finland who took the world championship crown by 1 point from McLaren


----------



## Ilkka

rossandwendy said:


> According to what Chad Kuypers told me in a recent telephone conversation, the Conquest is tuned to less than 20hz, but I'll leave it to him to share the exact frequency if he so chooses...
> 
> Ross


Hi Ross,

You have a Conquest? A simple measurement could give us the exact tuning frequency. Do you have a mic/RS meter and know how to use the Room EQ Wizard?


----------



## Guest

Ilkka said:


> Hi Ross,
> 
> You have a Conquest? A simple measurement could give us the exact tuning frequency. Do you have a mic/RS meter and know how to use the Room EQ Wizard?


Hi Ilkka,

First let me say how much respect I have for the work you do in conducting the subwoofer tests and really appreciate the great info you freely share with the community!

Yes, I do have a Conquest, but have yet to learn or use REW and would need to get an external soundcard for my laptop and probably a decent mic (only have an RS analog meter). Perhaps I will do this when I get back from vacation in earl/mid-November.

Cheers,
Ross


----------



## SteveCallas

noah said:


> A driver optimized for sealed has a higher Q for two reasons:
> 
> 1) High Mms (which raises Q) will be needed to get a reasonably low Fc
> 
> 2) Being a single-mass system, it will be overdamped with low Q; vented systems need extra damping to control the second mass (port air/PR)


Nah, I disagree with both statements. If you want anything resembling a flat FR in a small enclosure, it helps to start off with a really low Q so that the EQ needed isn't extreme. A small enclosure won't provide much damping, so you need to get it from the driver's suspesnion. Use a high Q driver in a small sealed enclosure and you've just made it very difficult to achieve any low end linearity in FR. Also, really low Q drivers don't work all that well for low tuned ported designs, as the low end gets too peaky.


----------



## noah katz

If you have any way to generate freq, you can get quite close by using a low level and feeling for the lowest woofer excursion while lightly touching it.


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> Nah, I disagree with both statements. If you want anything resembling a flat FR in a small enclosure, it helps to start off with a really low Q so that the EQ needed isn't extreme. A small enclosure won't provide much damping, so you need to get it from the driver's suspesnion. Use a high Q driver in a small sealed enclosure and you've just made it very difficult to achieve any low end linearity in FR.


Steve,

You have it backwards. Low Q driver will start to roll off higher and has less deep bass output.



> Also, really low Q drivers don't work all that well for low tuned ported designs, as the low end gets too peaky.


That's correct.


----------



## noah katz

"If you want anything resembling a flat FR in a small enclosure, it helps to start off with a really low Q so that the EQ needed isn't extreme."

Try modeling it and you'll find otherwise. Start with any driver you like, then lower Q by decreasing Mms or increasing BL (which you can do by lowering Qes).

A guess part of what you say is true; in a really small box you'll need to use a high Q driver, but the EQ will need to be extreme becuase it will need to overcome the back EMF of the driver on top of the extra box air stiffness.

"Also, really low Q drivers don't work all that well for low tuned ported designs, as the low end gets too peaky."

Try the same modeling experiment as above and you'll see that as Qts increases so does low end peaking.


----------



## SteveCallas

If I'm graphing a TC3k 15" with a .261 Qts in 70 liters (small) to achieve a .537 Qtc, and an old Adire Brahma 15" with a .474 Qts in 70 liters liters to achieve a .818 Qtc, the TC3k sub will have a stronger low end for a given amount of power, as the low end is more sensitive. The Brahma will have a flatter top end.


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> If I'm graphing a TC3k 15" with a .261 Qts in 70 liters (small) to achieve a .537 Qtc, and an old Adire Brahma 15" with a .474 Qts in 70 liters liters to achieve a .818 Qtc, the TC3k sub will have a stronger low end for a given amount of power, as the low end is more sensitive. The Brahma will have a flatter top end.


You can't compare two totally different drivers. That's because also other parameters affect the FR. Use the same driver but only change the Qes value. Unibox comes very handy.


----------



## SteveCallas

noah said:


> Try modeling it and you'll find otherwise. Start with any driver you like, then lower Q by decreasing Mms or increasing BL (which you can do by lowering Qes).


Hmm, increasing Bl, decreasing Qes, and decreasing Qts seems to round off the top end a little and give me more overall sensitivity.


----------



## jmcomp124

Ilkka said:


> :fireworks1: :fireworks2:
> 
> We have a winner! Peter has just won a bag full of bragging rights on all HT forums.


:hissyfit::explode::rant:
Congrats Peter :T


----------



## jmcomp124

Ilkka said:


> :fireworks1: :fireworks2:
> 
> We have a winner! Peter has just won a bag full of bragging rights on all HT forums.


How close is the sealed 13U to the f113? :foottap: The FR of the LMS was pretty obvious :heehee:


----------



## WillyD

> We have a winner! Peter has just won a bag full of bragging rights on all HT forums.


I just found the challenge and my first guess was the 5400 on top and the PB13 on bottom.


----------



## Ilkka

jmcomp124 said:


> How close is the sealed 13U to the f113? :foottap:


Well it's similar but not identical. You'll see it eventually.


----------



## Ilkka

WillyD said:


> I just found the challenge and my first guess was the 5400 on top and the PB13 on bottom.


Sure thing Willy, it's easy to say NOW... :sarcastic: j/k

I knew you would catch them.


----------



## chengbin

When can we see the results for those subs?


----------



## Ilkka

chengbin said:


> When can we see the results for those subs?


Same time as the results for the rest of the subs.


----------



## Guest

jmcomp124 said:


> :hissyfit::explode::rant:
> Congrats Peter :T


Thanks Jai! I was just going from memory on the PB13U, and at first I thought it had a steeper rolloff than the bottom graph. Of course, when I double checked AV Talk data set afterward, I realized that the bottom graph was actually correct, and the rolloff looked different because of differences in scale used in the graphs.


----------



## mojomike

Peter Marcks said:


> Thanks Jai! I was just going from memory on the PB13U, and at first I thought it had a steeper rolloff than the bottom graph. Of course, when I double checked AV Talk data set afterward, I realized that the bottom graph was actually correct, and the rolloff looked different because of differences in scale used in the graphs.


Peter, I did the same thing. The two PB13 graphs are almost identical, but Ilkka cut his off at 20hz.


----------



## Guest

It happens to the best of us from time to time 

I was most surprised that no one had guessed the LMS-5400 as one of the choices up until myself and Jai mentioned it. Ilkka provided plenty of hints too.


----------



## chengbin

Ilkka said:


> Same time as the results for the rest of the subs.


I meant the results for the subs you recently tested like the PB13 and f113.Can I expect that we'll be able to see the results in a week?


----------



## Ilkka

chengbin said:


> I meant the results for the subs you recently tested like the PB13 and f113.Can I expect that we'll be able to see the results in a week?


Sorry, no chance. There's still a lot of work to do with the results before they are ready.


----------



## chengbin

IIkka, could you design a DIY sub with 1 (or 2) LMS 5400 in a very big enclosure (maybe even ported) and measure it in the next round of tests. Could you measure the Epik subwoofers, especially the Conquest. Thanks. BTW, at the risk of sounding very stupid, does sonic performance change dramatically if you use a transformer to convert 220V to 110V. Because you've said that you can't test some subs because they're not available in 220V version. And could you test the ED A7-900. Thanks so much for your work.


----------



## ISLAND1000

Hi chengbin, Ilkka is a very busy guy. He is currently in the process of finalizing the data from the latest round of speaker tests. We are all waiting for the final results of those tests.
Don't be dissapointed if he isn't able to get around to your requests . . . . for a while.


----------



## chengbin

it's not a problem... just wanna know


----------



## WillyD

> IIkka, could you design a DIY sub with 1 (or 2) LMS 5400 in a very big enclosure (maybe even ported)


Using the 5400 in a 'very big enclosure' is not worthwhile.


----------



## Ilkka

chengbin said:


> IIkka, could you design a DIY sub with 1 (or 2) LMS 5400 in a very big enclosure (maybe even ported) and measure it in the next round of tests. Could you measure the Epik subwoofers, especially the Conquest. Thanks. BTW, at the risk of sounding very stupid, does sonic performance change dramatically if you use a transformer to convert 220V to 110V. Because you've said that you can't test some subs because they're not available in 220V version. And could you test the ED A7-900. Thanks so much for your work.


Wow, that's quite a handful of requests. :blink:

Usually a transformer is not a good idea when it comes to high power subwoofers.


----------



## SteveCallas

Willy said:


> Using the 5400 in a 'very big enclosure' is not worthwhile


Yeah, for a ported sub, the parameters just don't work out too well. If wishing to still use those PRs however, going larger would be beneficial.


----------



## jmcomp124

SteveCallas said:


> Yeah, for a ported sub, the parameters just don't work out too well. If wishing to still use those PRs however, going larger would be beneficial.


I second that. I considered ported long and hard, but they are simply not feasible (size) for the LMS. :rolleyesno:


----------



## SteveCallas

Compared to other high excursion 18" drivers, the box actually wouldn't have to be very big at all - and that is the problem. Trying to use a <15hz tune in a non-giant enclosure will result in either not enough port area or a port that is so long the first resonance will be noticaly audble.


----------



## jmcomp124

SteveCallas said:


> Compared to other high excursion 18" drivers, the box actually wouldn't have to be very big at all - and that is the problem. Trying to use a <15hz tune in a non-giant enclosure will result in either not enough port area or a port that is so long the first resonance will be noticaly audble.


There is a correlation between port length/volume and box volume. We want these pipe/s inside the box, don't we? The box volume and port length/volume are not mutually exclusive unless one chooses to have external pipes/ports the appearance of which becomes a topic of debate. Giant turbo-charger hood scoop on a garbage truck? :rofl:


----------



## cjwhitehouse

Ilkka, can you explain for the benefit of the rest of us, a couple of queries I have regarding the CEA-2010 numbers.

First, can you explain the 3.03dB figure that you quote as the difference between peak and RMS figures? For a continuous sine wave, there is a difference ("crest factor") of about 3.01dB. However, for a 6.5 cycle Hann-windowed toneburst, the actual crest factor is about 7.26dB by my calculations. Just curious how you arrived at 3.03dB.

Secondly, the CEA-2010 standard is a published standard. If you want to label your measurements CEA-2010, surely you have to follow the letter of the standard and not normalise the results to 2m distance/RMS value. Otherwise, assuming manufacturers do start to quote these numbers in the future, comparison will be difficult. Also, are CEA not going to be protective of their new standard and take exception if you publish numbers purporting to be CEA-2010 but actually on a different basis?


----------



## Ilkka

cjwhitehouse said:


> Ilkka, can you explain for the benefit of the rest of us, a couple of queries I have regarding the CEA-2010 numbers.
> 
> First, can you explain the 3.03dB figure that you quote as the difference between peak and RMS figures? For a continuous sine wave, there is a difference ("crest factor") of about 3.01dB. However, for a 6.5 cycle Hann-windowed toneburst, the actual crest factor is about 7.26dB by my calculations. Just curious how you arrived at 3.03dB.


The 3.03 dB was just a typo on my part. I naturally meant the commonly known ~3.01 dB peak/RMS factor. It has been confirmed by the people behind the CEA-2010 that it is the correct factor to use when transforming the peak values given by the program to RMS values. It is related to the way the program measures the peak value. 



> Secondly, the CEA-2010 standard is a published standard. If you want to label your measurements CEA-2010, surely you have to follow the letter of the standard and not normalise the results to 2m distance/RMS value. Otherwise, assuming manufacturers do start to quote these numbers in the future, comparison will be difficult. Also, are CEA not going to be protective of their new standard and take exception if you publish numbers purporting to be CEA-2010 but actually on a different basis?


Not at all. I've been exchanging numerous e-mails with the people behind the CEA-2010, and they have been very supportive towards my tests and findings. They are even considering some small changes because of what I have suggested. The 2m/RMS doesn't cause any problems now or in the future. I can always post 1m/peak table if someone wants to use those values instead.


----------



## Ilkka

I noticed some Epik Tower and Conquest measurements over at the Science forum. Someone said the Conquest should be named to "DIY killer". Well, unfortunately this DIY sub doesn't quite agree. And it's almost ~30% smaller than the Conquest.  Of course for a meager $1599 the Conquest is a pretty sweet sub if size isn't a problem.

Epik Conquest (top line):










DIY sub (note that the last step shown was 3 dB, not 5 dB):


----------



## Guest

I was actually joking when i stated DIY killer. I know there are plenty of DIY subs that will take a conquest. Just out of curiousity, which sub is it that you posted?


----------



## Ilkka

mwoofer said:


> I was actually joking when i stated DIY killer. I know there are plenty of DIY subs that will take a conquest.


Yeah. :boxer:



> Just out of curiousity, which sub is it that you posted?


I won't tell it yet but it shouldn't be too hard to guess when looking at the list of the subwoofers tested during the last round.


----------



## Ron Temple

I can't read the graphs worth squat, but it looks like the differences between the best DIY and commericial subs is getting to be very rarified(sp?) air. You've really got to have the inclination to push the envelope (and the skills).


----------



## Guest

lol, boxing emotocon, hadn't seen that one yet. Umm, it must be the lms5400 with 2 PR?? 
How much would that cost though to build, even if you got a steal of a deal on the lms5400 @ $1500
The amp to power it is another grand right? Not to mention you'd still have to build it.. (oh yeah, and 2 passive radiators will set you back a few more hundred)
Anyways, looks like the lms5400 is probably the best woofer out there, but the conquest just might be the absolute best $1600-$1800 you can spend if you can't, or don't want to do it yourself.


----------



## Ilkka

mwoofer said:


> lol, boxing emotocon, hadn't seen that one yet. Umm, it must be the lms5400 with 2 PR??
> How much would that cost though to build, even if you got a steal of a deal on the lms5400 @ $1500
> The amp to power it is another grand right? Not to mention you'd still have to build it.. (oh yeah, and 2 passive radiators will set you back a few more hundred)
> Anyways, looks like the lms5400 is probably the best woofer out there, but the conquest just might be the absolute best $1600-$1800 you can spend if you can't, or don't want to do it yourself.


LMS-5400 18" $875 (back then)
2 TC-VMP 18" $500
Crown CE4000 $700 (used)
Enclosure $150 (basic black)
-----------------------------
Total $2225

By using some cheaper amp like the Behringer EP2500, one could push it down to ~$1800.


----------



## rick57

Hi Ilkka 

(I just revisited this thread after an absence)
Just my 5th post . .

You wrote re the sealed DIY LMS-5400 & sealed PB13U, which had outputs at 20 Hz = output at 50 Hz, less either 5 or 10 dB:

“A few frequency responses that I really like (for small/mid-sized rooms)”

Were you thinking ~ solely or mostly for music? 
In that case I agree.

Though the graphs don't extend down to 10 Hz, for purely HT use, even with room gain, a moderate hump around 12- 16 Hz that an EBS/ LLT would produce, would give more "effects oomph" - do you agree? 

Thank you


----------



## ssabripo

Ilkka said:


> LMS-5400 18" $875 (back then)
> 2 TC-VMP 18" $500
> Crown CE4000 $700 (used)
> Enclosure $150 (basic black)
> -----------------------------
> Total $2225
> 
> By using some cheaper amp like the Behringer EP2500, one could push it down to ~$1800.


true. But then again, find another commercial subwoofer under $2k that would give you that level of performance!:bigsmile:


----------



## mojomike

ssabripo said:


> true. But then again, find another commercial subwoofer under $2k that would give you that level of performance!:bigsmile:


Are you writing off the big eD? It is priced at $2000 including shipping.


----------



## SteveCallas

You can get there for cheaper than the LMS. I'd go with a pair of high excursion 18s for more displacement at less cost.


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> You can get there for cheaper than the LMS. I'd go with a pair of high excursion 18s for more displacement at less cost.


Not if you have only ~200 liters to spend.


----------



## ssabripo

mojomike said:


> Are you writing off the big eD? It is priced at $2000 including shipping.


I don't know what it does, and I have not seen numbers on it. Sorry, but "mr. points rankings" and his views really don't mean a whole lot to me unfortunately 

When I see some numbers on it, I'll gladly put it in the mix


SteveCallas said:


> You can get there for cheaper than the LMS. I'd go with a pair of high excursion 18s for more displacement at less cost.


not within same size constraints.


Would I buy it? NO! :bigsmile: Gimme a pair of 18" drivers, some good power plants, and some MDF (and chuck's tools/garage) and I'm good.

for someone trying to "buy" something, other than possibly the eD A7-900, I just don't see anything close to it out there.


----------



## SteveCallas

Oh, I definitely agree. Were I interested in buying a finished sub, the Conquest would be it - and so close off the heels of the new SVS Ultra looking so good. The rise in interest in DIY over the past two years appears to have definitely made a couple of smart manufactures more performance orientated. Some of the others though, well they just keep on trucking along with what they got :sarcastic:


----------



## Ricci

Guys,
I do believe that the graph that Illka snagged from the AVS forum, does not show the max output of the conquest, regardless of the max spl tag. This is what was said by the guy who produced the graph. Only the top line is the conquest and it wasn't even completed due to rain. It may have more in the tank.


----------



## mojomike

Ricci said:


> Guys,
> I do believe that the graph that Illka snagged from the AVS forum, does not show the max output of the conquest, regardless of the max spl tag. This is what was said by the guy who produced the graph. Only the top line is the conquest and it wasn't even completed due to rain. It may have more in the tank.


That does appear to be very possible. Also worth noting is that even with the limited data to go by, the Conquest appears to be considerably more linear than the Tower from the 50 to 100hz range. This can be real factor when it comes to "punch" in music.


----------



## Ilkka

Ricci said:


> Guys,
> I do believe that the graph that Illka snagged from the AVS forum, does not show the max output of the conquest, regardless of the max spl tag. This is what was said by the guy who produced the graph. Only the top line is the conquest and it wasn't even completed due to rain. It may have more in the tank.


I seriously doubt it has much (if anything) left in the tank. An 18" driver in a vented ~250 liter box with a 1000 watt amp can take you only so far. Very good performance that is.


----------



## ISLAND1000

Ilkka,
Have you tested the LMS with voice coils in series, parallel, and both but separate? If you have are there any advantages to either or neither?
If you haven't tested all hook-ups, will you? Can you discuss this?


----------



## Ilkka

ISLAND1000 said:


> Ilkka,
> Have you tested the LMS with voice coils in series, parallel, and both but separate? If you have are there any advantages to either or neither?
> If you haven't tested all hook-ups, will you? Can you discuss this?


Yes, I have done some testing. I'm 100 % sure it only affects (audibly) the impedance. So you should choose the best configuration and impedance for your amplifier. Usually most pro amps give the most power and work best when bridged at 4 ohms. If that isn't possible, one should use 8 ohms instead. 2 ohms bridged is usually too low for most amps (Crown CE4000 included).


----------



## Avus_M3

Subscribed! 

I am starting to see why my wife calls this an unhealthy habbit :newspaper:

Oh...BTW my first post over here at the shack


----------



## Ilkka

Avus_M3 said:


> Subscribed!
> 
> I am starting to see why my wife calls this an unhealthy habbit :newspaper:
> 
> Oh...BTW my first post over here at the shack


Welcome to the Shack, Dave! :bigsmile:


----------



## Ilkka

I have been performing some subjective in-room listening and movie testing lately, and I have to say that boy, do I like the LMS-5400 + 2 PR combination. An _exceptional_ sound quality combined with almost unlimited headroom (at least in my small room). What else can one hope? Well, maybe if it would be a tad smaller, but 200 liters isn't yet that huge. I haven't yet tested how high I can push it, but I'm sure 120 dBC won't be a problem. The dual sealed SDX15 with a single CE4000 (2400 watts/8 ohms) can do around that before I see the clip lights on the Crown. The woofers could take more though so I'll have to ( :bigsmile: ) test it with two of them (2x3600W) like I did in the GP measurements.

I will also compare the Crown CE4000 to the t.amp TA2400 (somewhat similar to the EP2500) using both the dual SDX and two LMS' I have (sealed and PR). But already now I can tell you that the Crown clips much more "silently" than the TA2400. The TA2400 makes a much worse noise (almost like hard bottoming noise) when pushed to clipping. I have yet to test what kind of dB difference there is between those two amps on program material but I'm expecting at least a couple dB.

I also listened to the PB13-Ultra and took some in-room measurements using program material. I will publish them after I have conducted the same tests on the DIY subs and the JL Audio Fathom f113.


----------



## chengbin

ohh, love to hear more about your opinion about these subs in-room performance. Tell us more about sound quality of these subs. Particularly the PB13U, JL f113, and LMS-5400 + 2PR combo. Thank you so much IIkka for doing these testing for us.


----------



## jmcomp124

Ilkka said:


> I have been performing some subjective in-room listening and movie testing lately, and I have to say that boy, do I like the LMS-5400 + 2 PR combination. An _exceptional_ sound quality combined with almost unlimited headroom (at least in my small room). What else can one hope? Well, maybe if it would be a tad smaller, but 200 liters isn't yet that huge. I haven't yet tested how high I can push it, but I'm sure 120 dBC won't be a problem. The dual sealed SDX15 with a single CE4000 (2400 watts/8 ohms) can do around that before I see the clip lights on the Crown. The woofers could take more though so I'll have to ( :bigsmile: ) test it with two of them (2x3600W) like I did in the GP measurements.
> 
> I will also compare the Crown CE4000 to the t.amp TA2400 (somewhat similar to the EP2500) using both the dual SDX and two LMS' I have (sealed and PR). But already now I can tell you that the Crown clips much more "silently" than the TA2400. The TA2400 makes a much worse noise (almost like hard bottoming noise) when pushed to clipping. I have yet to test what kind of dB difference there is between those two amps on program material but I'm expecting at least a couple dB.
> 
> I also listened to the PB13-Ultra and took some in-room measurements using program material. I will publish them after I have conducted the same tests on the DIY subs and the JL Audio Fathom f113.


This is very good to know. So was I right about how good these subs sound? :bigsmile:
I do have a very important question about HP filters. There has been a lot of disagreement and some people feel that I have been overly cautious and not using the full potential of my subs because of setting the rane PE-17's 2nd order BW filter at 20Hz. My subs are tuned to about 15Hz. Anything below 20Hz I consider unsafe for material like FOTP Sandstorm/Plane crash and WOTW (ground implodes) when listening close to reference/at reference/a few dB beyond reference (MV at 0). I have calibrated my subs (you know I have 2 of these babies) for 80dB AVIA for MV0. 
So here are my questions for you Ilkka,
1. Are you using any HP filter, if so, to what value have you set it to and what type of filter?
2. Have you tried the FOTP and WOTW scenes I am talking about, if not, can you try it sometime soon and report back? If you have tried it, how close to peak excursion was the driver?
3. How big is your room? Leaky? How far is your LP from the sub?
With FOTP (when they escape and the plane emerges from the valley) I registered 118dB at LP with subs calibrated equal to mains. I haven't tried calibrating the subs +3dB hot on this scene yet. I think it would cross 120dB at reference (MV0 and calibrated to 80dB with avia). With Happy feet avalanche scene, calibrated 6dB hot (LFE), I registered 117dB. Note that my room is effective 7000 cu ft (about 6000 cu ft and add another 1000 for leaky room). LP is about 16ft.
What are your thoughts Ilkka on the HP filter? I fear going below 20Hz with the 2nd order BW filter. I am almost 100% sure that if I set that filter at 16Hz and play FOTP at reference level my sub will bottom out.
Thoughts?
Can you try this sub in a larger room with various HP filter settings? The HP filter is the "Achilles feet" :R for this sub IMHO.


----------



## SteveCallas

> I fear going below 20Hz with the 2nd order BW filter. I am almost 100% sure that if I set that filter at 16Hz and play FOTP at reference level my sub will bottom out


That's not good :rolleyesno: I think there is a problem you may not be catching.


----------



## jmcomp124

SteveCallas said:


> That's not good :rolleyesno: I think there is a problem you may not be catching.


Not necessarily a problem Steve. I want to know what Ilkka's personal experince is with this issue. Note that a 2nd order BW has a very gentle roll off at 20Hz.


----------



## ISLAND1000

Jai, it sounds like YOU should be the one giving all the listening impressions not Ilkka. You've had your LMSs longer than he has and don't you also have the Crown CE4000?
Tell us . . . . me . . . . . have you blown a fuse or tripped a breaker yet?
What do you think of the way your LMSs sound on music?
I easily overpower my mains with my LMS is that your experience?
Have you had anything loosen up yet in your boxes? Have you had to retighten your mounting bolts? Does your speaker wire get warm to the touch after playing loud and low?


----------



## jmcomp124

ISLAND1000 said:


> Jai, it sounds like YOU should be the one giving all the listening impressions not Ilkka. You've had your LMSs longer than he has and don't you also have the Crown CE4000?
> Tell us . . . . me . . . . . have you blown a fuse or tripped a breaker yet?
> What do you think of the way your LMSs sound on music?
> I easily overpower my mains with my LMS is that your experience?
> Have you had anything loosen up yet in your boxes? Have you had to retighten your mounting bolts? Does your speaker wire get warm to the touch after playing loud and low?


Yes, I do have the CE4000 and in fact I was most influential in Ilkka testing out this particular design with amp combo. 
"Tell us . . . . me . . . . . have you blown a fuse or tripped a breaker yet?"
No
"What do you think of the way your LMSs sound on music?"
Better than anything and everything I have ever listentend to. (Danley DTS-20, JLf113, all of the other SVS and other subs I have owned)
"I easily overpower my mains with my LMS is that your experience?"
Yes
"Have you had anything loosen up yet in your boxes?"
No
"Does your speaker wire get warm to the touch after playing loud and low?"
I don't know since I never had to worry about it. I will check to see in the future.
With that said, Ilkka can contribute here a lot more than I can. Of course I have owned this design longer than him. But he has more experince, knowldege and resources. So I would like to hear from him.
To compliment him, I do question and challenge whatever methodology and analysis that goes into it. 
I hope that answers your questions. Now I want some answers about HP filters to see if indeed Steve's thought about me not catching something is true. Maybe Steve is right, but we have to put this to test. :nerd:


----------



## Ricci

jmcomp124,
I know that we already discussed this once, but your design would seem to be PR limited below 20hz, especially right around tuning 15-16hz. I know I'm beating a dead horse here...


----------



## SteveCallas

Needing a highpass at 20hz or else bottoming occurs _is_ a problem in my book. There's a million options out there if you are only after good headroom, linear FR, and low distortion from 20hz on up. That's no longer a very difficult set of performance measures to excel in - it used to be a handful of years ago, but no longer. I won't say infrasonics is the latest craze, but when using a modern, high excursion 18" driver with an expensive low distortion motor technology like the LMS 18", solid <20hz performance should be a given. 

Ricci is convinced the design is PR limited below 20hz - that sounds like a much more plausible explanation for the troubles going on when not using the highpass than it being anything driver related.


----------



## jmcomp124

SteveCallas said:


> Needing a highpass at 20hz or else bottoming occurs _is_ a problem in my book. There's a million options out there if you are only after good headroom, linear FR, and low distortion from 20hz on up. That's no longer a very difficult set of performance measures to excel in - it used to be a handful of years ago, but no longer. I won't say infrasonics is the latest craze, but when using a modern, high excursion 18" driver with an expensive low distortion motor technology like the LMS 18", solid <20hz performance should be a given.
> 
> Ricci is convinced the design is PR limited below 20hz - that sounds like a much more plausible explanation for the troubles going on when not using the highpass than it being anything driver related.


I don't know how else to explain to you guys. I have video taped PR and cone excursions and being PR limited is not the case. The WinISD models also say the same and it co-relates to my observations. 
Why is this so hard to comprehend?


----------



## Mark Seaton

jmcomp124 said:


> I do have a very important question about HP filters. There has been a lot of disagreement and some people feel that I have been overly cautious and not using the full potential of my subs because of setting the rane PE-17's 2nd order BW filter at 20Hz. My subs are tuned to about 15Hz. Anything below 20Hz I consider unsafe for material like FOTP Sandstorm/Plane crash and WOTW (ground implodes) when listening close to reference/at reference/a few dB beyond reference (MV at 0). I have calibrated my subs (you know I have 2 of these babies) for 80dB AVIA for MV0.


Jai,

Questioning if your high pass at 20hz is rather pointless without context. Have you measured the electrical response to see that the high pass is in fact at 20Hz? You are using an analog device that has a rather wide range over a relatively small slider and the PEQ on the PE-17 has the same issue. It functions fine, but fine adjustment requires angular rotation that is equal to minutes and seconds on the dial. Have you measured the in-room response to see what the observed low frequency extension is despite having the filter in place?

While many overlook the interaction, the EQ applied has a significant effect on what is going on with the net electrical response. A couple of cuts or boosts in the lower octave or just lower Q filters will quickly affect the low end roll of as they interact with the filter. There are also questions of amplifier clipping. The CE4k is a nice amp, but I have yet to meet an amp I can't clip or a sub I can't overdrive or otherwise find the limits of. :flex: :devil:

Remember that there is an impedance minimum at the tuning frequency, and it would be expected that the amp would clip sooner there than elsewhere. How the amp behaves at clipping could just as easily be an issue. Ilkka should be able to note at what level, if any, he experienced any system limit, and possibly what the limiting factor was.


----------



## SteveCallas

Maybe a PR makes it easier for a driver to unload below tuning than a port? Ilkka, anything preliminary you can share?


----------



## jmcomp124

Ricci said:


> jmcomp124,
> I know that we already discussed this once, but your design would seem to be PR limited below 20hz, especially right around tuning 15-16hz. I know I'm beating a dead horse here...


What makes you think it is PR limited. 
Have you tried a WinISD or Unibox or some other model that tells you this design is PR limited? If so, my modeling is incorrect and I have calibrate to yours. 
I have tried the model and I also have the box in real life. As I already mentioned, my observations with the box matches the model. 
If Ilkka's observations are different, then I would need to investigate this further and hence my questions on HP filters.
I appreciate responses like yours but I want them to be backed by good reasons and not just "I think" or "would seem".
I am data driven, let's put it that way.


----------



## jmcomp124

Mark Seaton said:


> Jai,
> 
> Questioning if your high pass at 20hz is rather pointless without context. Have you measured the electrical response to see that the high pass is in fact at 20Hz? You are using an analog device that has a rather wide range over a relatively small slider and the PEQ on the PE-17 has the same issue. It functions fine, but fine adjustment requires angular rotation that is equal to minutes and seconds on the dial. Have you measured the in-room response to see what the observed low frequency extension is despite having the filter in place?
> 
> While many overlook the interaction, the EQ applied has a significant effect on what is going on with the net electrical response. A couple of cuts or boosts in the lower octave or just lower Q filters will quickly affect the low end roll of as they interact with the filter. There are also questions of amplifier clipping. The CE4k is a nice amp, but I have yet to meet an amp I can't clip or a sub I can't overdrive or otherwise find the limits of. :flex: :devil:
> 
> Remember that there is an impedance minimum at the tuning frequency, and it would be expected that the amp would clip sooner there than elsewhere. How the amp behaves at clipping could just as easily be an issue. Ilkka should be able to note at what level, if any, he experienced any system limit, and possibly what the limiting factor was.


Mark,
Very good points. Yes, I am absolutely sure that the slider in the Rane PE-17 is at 20Hz and yes I did measure the electrical response (loopback mode, you know what I mean). This was done very carefully with ETF. Yes, I have measured the in-roop response and also the electrical response of each filter setting.
I haven't found the limits of the CE4K yet :bigsmile:


----------



## jmcomp124

Mark Seaton said:


> Jai,
> 
> Questioning if your high pass at 20hz is rather pointless without context. Have you measured the electrical response to see that the high pass is in fact at 20Hz? You are using an analog device that has a rather wide range over a relatively small slider and the PEQ on the PE-17 has the same issue. It functions fine, but fine adjustment requires angular rotation that is equal to minutes and seconds on the dial. Have you measured the in-room response to see what the observed low frequency extension is despite having the filter in place?
> 
> While many overlook the interaction, the EQ applied has a significant effect on what is going on with the net electrical response. A couple of cuts or boosts in the lower octave or just lower Q filters will quickly affect the low end roll of as they interact with the filter. There are also questions of amplifier clipping. The CE4k is a nice amp, but I have yet to meet an amp I can't clip or a sub I can't overdrive or otherwise find the limits of. :flex: :devil:
> 
> Remember that there is an impedance minimum at the tuning frequency, and it would be expected that the amp would clip sooner there than elsewhere. How the amp behaves at clipping could just as easily be an issue. Ilkka should be able to note at what level, if any, he experienced any system limit, and possibly what the limiting factor was.


Just to clarify. When I say 20Hz, it is the -3dB point of the electrical response which means roll-off starts slightly earlier. When the filter is set to 16Hz, the electrical response shows the roll-off starting around 20Hz (recalling from memory here). 
I also measured the electrical response of the SVS Marchand black box and that 4th order filter had a boost in the vicinity of the roll-off. The Rane PE-17 looks like gold (no unnatural boost) as far as electrical response is concerned. Another option was to use a steeper filter at 16Hz but some modeling suggested that a 2nd order BW at 20Hz has similar roll-off to a 4th order L-R at 16Hz.


----------



## Ilkka

jmcomp124 said:


> This is very good to know. So was I right about how good these subs sound? :bigsmile:
> I do have a very important question about HP filters. There has been a lot of disagreement and some people feel that I have been overly cautious and not using the full potential of my subs because of setting the rane PE-17's 2nd order BW filter at 20Hz. My subs are tuned to about 15Hz. Anything below 20Hz I consider unsafe for material like FOTP Sandstorm/Plane crash and WOTW (ground implodes) when listening close to reference/at reference/a few dB beyond reference (MV at 0). I have calibrated my subs (you know I have 2 of these babies) for 80dB AVIA for MV0.
> So here are my questions for you Ilkka,
> 1. Are you using any HP filter, if so, to what value have you set it to and what type of filter?
> 2. Have you tried the FOTP and WOTW scenes I am talking about, if not, can you try it sometime soon and report back? If you have tried it, how close to peak excursion was the driver?
> 3. How big is your room? Leaky? How far is your LP from the sub?
> With FOTP (when they escape and the plane emerges from the valley) I registered 118dB at LP with subs calibrated equal to mains. I haven't tried calibrating the subs +3dB hot on this scene yet. I think it would cross 120dB at reference (MV0 and calibrated to 80dB with avia). With Happy feet avalanche scene, calibrated 6dB hot (LFE), I registered 117dB. Note that my room is effective 7000 cu ft (about 6000 cu ft and add another 1000 for leaky room). LP is about 16ft.
> What are your thoughts Ilkka on the HP filter? I fear going below 20Hz with the 2nd order BW filter. I am almost 100% sure that if I set that filter at 16Hz and play FOTP at reference level my sub will bottom out.
> Thoughts?
> Can you try this sub in a larger room with various HP filter settings? The HP filter is the "Achilles feet" :R for this sub IMHO.


1. At the moment I'm not using any HP filter. During the GP session I used a 20 Hz 2nd order BW high pass filter (the lowest the DCX2496 allows). But I added a low-Q boost at 20 Hz so it became an effective ~16 Hz filter. I didn't bottom out the active driver or the PRs (well you can't really bottom out them).

2. I haven't yet tried those scenes with this sub. I will try them and report back. Though I'm not sure if I'm able to push this sub up to its limits. Remember that I live in an apartment. :R

3. My room is really small, only around 1500 cu ft and open (regular doorway) to ~2500 cu ft.

Here's the FOTP scene you mention. I doubt the <15 Hz material is strong enough to make the active driver bottom out. If it bottoms out, it is caused by the 25-30 Hz material instead. Also the WOTW chapter5 doesn't have that much strong sub-15 Hz material. All the really loud stuff is higher.


----------



## Ilkka

ISLAND1000 said:


> Jai, it sounds like YOU should be the one giving all the listening impressions not Ilkka.


:dontknow:



> Does your speaker wire get warm to the touch after playing loud and low?


What kind of wire (gauge) you are using? That is definitely not normal.


----------



## Ilkka

Mark Seaton said:


> Ilkka should be able to note at what level, if any, he experienced any system limit, and possibly what the limiting factor was.


During the GP measurements the performance was limited by the active driver (long sine sweeps). It couldn't take the 120 dB (nominal at 50 Hz) sweep, which is no means bad performance.  The 118 dB sweep went well all the way down to 10 Hz.


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> Maybe a PR makes it easier for a driver to unload below tuning than a port? Ilkka, anything preliminary you can share?


I don't believe this is the case. Of course I can't be 100% sure because I was using a HP filter during the GP session.

But I did notice that the measured frequency response doesn't match the simulated response as well as with the 270L LLT I measured earlier. The LMS/PR starts to roll-off sooner than the simulation shows, as if the Qmp of the PR's was really low (around 1). The -6 dB (+/- 3 dB) frequency for the LMS/PR was around 18.5 Hz. And this was without any HP filters/EQ. The measured tuning frequency was 16.1 Hz. The LLT did ~13.5 Hz (-6 dB) with a 16.5 Hz tuning. I'm thinking 200 liters is too little for the LMS/PR combo. Something around 250-300 liters should boost that low end quite nicely.


----------



## noah katz

"Here's the FOTP scene you mention. I doubt the <15 Hz material is strong enough to make the active driver bottom out. If it bottoms out, it is caused by the 25-30 Hz material instead."

I seem to have forgotten how to read these graphs, or maybe I never knew.

I thought the SPL level was represented by color, in which case there's a high level just above 10 Hz.

But what does the vertical axis represent? If it's SPL, then what does color represent?


----------



## jmcomp124

Ilkka said:


> I don't believe this is the case. Of course I can't be 100% sure because I was using a HP filter during the GP session.
> 
> But I did notice that the measured frequency response doesn't match the simulated response as well as with the 270L LLT I measured earlier. The LMS/PR starts to roll-off sooner than the simulation shows, as if the Qmp of the PR's was really low (around 1). The -6 dB (+/- 3 dB) frequency for the LMS/PR was around 18.5 Hz. And this was without any HP filters/EQ. The measured tuning frequency was 16.1 Hz. The LLT did ~13.5 Hz (-6 dB) with a 16.5 Hz tuning. I'm thinking 200 liters is too little for the LMS/PR combo. Something around 250-300 liters should boost that low end quite nicely.


My box is larger (I think around 240, I have to go back and check) and yes I agree the larger the better for that lower end.


----------



## Ilkka

noah katz said:


> "Here's the FOTP scene you mention. I doubt the <15 Hz material is strong enough to make the active driver bottom out. If it bottoms out, it is caused by the 25-30 Hz material instead."
> 
> I seem to have forgotten how to read these graphs, or maybe I never knew.
> 
> I thought the SPL level was represented by color, in which case there's a high level just above 10 Hz.
> 
> But what does the vertical axis represent? If it's SPL, then what does color represent?


The vertical axis represents time. The scene/time rolls from top to bottom. Colour represents the SPL; dark red/pink being the highest.

Yes, there is a fairly strong signal around 11 Hz, but I don't believe it could bottom the driver at RL even if a 16 Hz HP filter would be used.


----------



## Ilkka

jmcomp124 said:


> My box is larger (I think around 240, I have to go back and check) and yes I agree the larger the better for that lower end.


Yes, your boxes are sightly larger (mine is around 210 liters to be exact) but I doubt that makes a difference regarding the HP filter/bottoming out.


----------



## noah katz

Ah, right, thanks Ilkka.


----------



## jmcomp124

Ilkka said:


> 1. At the moment I'm not using any HP filter. During the GP session I used a 20 Hz 2nd order BW high pass filter (the lowest the DCX2496 allows). But I added a low-Q boost at 20 Hz so it became an effective ~16 Hz filter. I didn't bottom out the active driver or the PRs (well you can't really bottom out them).
> 
> 2. I haven't yet tried those scenes with this sub. I will try them and report back. Though I'm not sure if I'm able to push this sub up to its limits. Remember that I live in an apartment. :R
> 
> 3. My room is really small, only around 1500 cu ft and open (regular doorway) to ~2500 cu ft.
> 
> Here's the FOTP scene you mention. I doubt the <15 Hz material is strong enough to make the active driver bottom out. If it bottoms out, it is caused by the 25-30 Hz material instead. Also the WOTW chapter5 doesn't have that much strong sub-15 Hz material. All the really loud stuff is higher.


Thanks for this info, Ilkka.
I recall the scene that made me move the HP filter higher. It was the "Exploding THX ball before the intro in Star Warshantom Menace". A waterfall chart like what you did for the FOTP scene, on this one would be great! Can you?
This scene caused one of the subs to bottom out. It was not a hard bottom thankfully and the driver survived. I noticed a couple of things was not set correctly/as desired. First, the right sub (I have two), had the HP filter in the CE4K set to 30Hz (negligence on my part). Second, the pre-amp was set to post-process to Dolby Pro-logic II, since I have 7.1, it shoudl have been Thx Ultra2 on the AVM-20. Also, the HP filter on the Rane was set to 16Hz. 
As I recall, the left sub bottomed out. I was playing at MV0 and the subs were calibrated +6dB hot. 
Immedietly thereafter, I fixed the 2 issues (bypassed the filter on the CE4K and set the Anthem pre to do the correct post processing, Thx Ultra2) and then I moved up the PE-17 up a notch to 20Hz.
Though the post processing was not the desired one and though the second sub had it's HP filter set to 30Hz, the bottom out made me very uncomfortable with the 16Hz filter. Ever since recalibration. I have yet to bottom out the subs. 
Last night I video taped the cone and PR excursion for the FOTP scene. It does not look like neither the driver nor the PR is nearing peak. I will try to post the video, this weekend.


----------



## Ilkka

jmcomp124 said:


> Thanks for this info, Ilkka.
> I recall the scene that made me move the HP filter higher. It was the "Exploding THX ball before the intro in Star Warshantom Menace". A waterfall chart like what you did for the FOTP scene, on this one would be great! Can you?


Sure I can (I had these in my archive). It's a tough scene with wide bandwidth of material. Definitely more stronger sub-15 Hz signal than the FOTP scene.













> First, the right sub (I have two), had the HP filter in the CE4K set to 30Hz (negligence on my part).


Wow, that is a pretty bad "mistake". :yikes:


> Last night I video taped the cone and PR excursion for the FOTP scene. It does not look like neither the driver nor the PR is nearing peak. I will try to post the video, this weekend.


Looking forward to that video.


----------



## jmcomp124

Ilkka said:


> Sure I can (I had these in my archive). It's a tough scene with wide bandwidth of material. Definitely more stronger sub-15 Hz signal than the FOTP scene.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that is a pretty bad "mistake". :yikes:
> 
> Looking forward to that video.


You are one incredible guy :T Thanks for that chart!


----------



## jmcomp124

Ok folks,
I thought I would push it to the limits, so I calibrated my subs +3dB hot and played the same FOTP at reference level and "HOOOOLY COW" it was 121.5dB at LP this time!!.
It felt like the building was going to collapse and the floor was about to cave in. I don't know how to describe this   . After all these months, these subs continue to surprise me. 
I am not going to push them anymore. Period. I don't want to lose them. They sound so incredibly good.
I video taped this too! So stay tuned. I think these suckers still have some more headroom left. 
If I move that slider down to 16Hz, am I going to feel something more than what I get now. I don't think so. So the slider in the Rane will remain at 20Hz. I know this will annoy and disappoint some of you. But that is where I stand at least for now. Happy man here. Buy that LMS .
Keep in mind, my room is very large and very very difficult to pressurize. At 17ft away from the subs, getting more than 120dB is simply incredible. There are 2 subs though. I wish TC would revert back to the original price so more folks can enjoy. Very distressing. This thing is a DIY dream, I hate it when it is destroyed with overpricing. I want more folks to enjoy this. I really do. TC are you listening?
Ilkka you are a lucky man to own these. Aren't you glad you pursued on this? . And thank you for being a part of my decision on these awesome drivers and design.
I may sound hyper, but this one does it .


----------



## jmcomp124

I want to add this....
> 120dbC at LP deserves no bragging rights. And some of you car audio superbassguys are chuckling now. But, you know what, experiencing such clean sound in a large room is an entirely different experience. It is HT Nirvana in short . It is not just how loud it is, it is how good it is. It is soooo good.


----------



## jmcomp124

Just tried out Spiderman3 a few minutes ago, timestamp 24mins, registered 119dB. Awesome! Sub was calibrated 3dB hot.


----------



## ISLAND1000

Ilkka said:


> :dontknow:
> 
> 
> What kind of wire (gauge) you are using? That is definitely not normal.


 I found a nearly completely separated (kink) in one wire conductor lead near the speaker connection on the No./gauge 16 wire that became a high resistance connection. It was that area of the speaker wire that became warm to the touch after running 10Hz to 60Hz sweeps for 20 minutes at about 105db.
I'm now using inexpensive 14 gauge twin lead speaker wire with no problem . . . . with no difference in sound quality either for those high $ wire officianados.
Good reason to use a round-over router bit on the box edges, because I think that's how I damaged the speaker wire. I must have tipped the box on edge while the speaker wire was under it. At a 140lb plus I can imagine I almost cut THRU the wire.
I'll be more careful.


----------



## ISLAND1000

Ilkka said:


> I'm thinking 200 liters is too little for the LMS/PR combo. Something around 250-300 liters should boost that low end quite nicely.


 This the area that DIYers can experiment with. We choose a box size using a modeling program attempting to plot the ultimate/perfect box size. But in real life as you've found out a slightly larger box size might change/improve that important sub 20Hz response.
I'm using a 190 liter sealed box because the modeling program showed that size to be optimum when using an LT and trying to get max SPL at 20Hz and lower. But I'm wondering, like you, if a slightly larger or smaller box would actually perform better overall.
Why is it that the impedance maximum IE: about 27Hz, might be the danger point for cone excursion limits rather than the area from 10Hz to 25Hz? My system uses LOTS of power according to my amp's warning lights right around a very narrow peak of 27Hz.


----------



## bobgpsr

How are you guys getting an accurate interior volume measurement with window braces, PR's and the driver, etc volumes. Seems so in-exact unless you go in integral math extremes. :whew:

Or are we talking exterior measured box volume? Just curious -- I know want really matters in getting the model to match reality is the actual interior volume. Just that it is so hard to be sure of its value to an exact degree. Unless a lot of measurements and volume calcs were done for all the interior pieces.


----------



## ISLAND1000

I attempted to be as accurate with my (internal) measurements as possible (including) adding the volume of all braces and the driver unit. TC SOUNDS has the volume of the 18" driver at .16 cubic feet.
The one aspect I have yet to explore with this box is "stuffing". I currently have all surfaces lined with 2 inch egg crate foam and will try 1lb/cu. ft. of polyester next.


----------



## Ilkka

jmcomp124 said:


> Ok folks,
> I thought I would push it to the limits, so I calibrated my subs +3dB hot and played the same FOTP at reference level and "HOOOOLY COW" it was 121.5dB at LP this time!!.
> It felt like the building was going to collapse and the floor was about to cave in. I don't know how to describe this   . After all these months, these subs continue to surprise me.


Hehee. Glad you found the problem.  Now, enjoy!



> I think these suckers still have some more headroom left.
> If I move that slider down to 16Hz, am I going to feel something more than what I get now. I don't think so. So the slider in the Rane will remain at 20Hz. I know this will annoy and disappoint some of you. But that is where I stand at least for now.


I doubt you would bottom out them even if you would move the slider all the way down (10 Hz) now that you got your little problems solved out, but of course it wouldn't benefit you much either. A few dB more below 20 Hz won't yet do much difference.



> Ilkka you are a lucky man to own these. Aren't you glad you pursued on this? . And thank you for being a part of my decision on these awesome drivers and design.


Can't you see that I'm smiling? :bigsmile:


----------



## Ilkka

ISLAND1000 said:


> This the area that DIYers can experiment with. We choose a box size using a modeling program attempting to plot the ultimate/perfect box size. But in real life as you've found out a slightly larger box size might change/improve that important sub 20Hz response.
> I'm using a 190 liter sealed box because the modeling program showed that size to be optimum when using an LT and trying to get max SPL at 20Hz and lower. But I'm wondering, like you, if a slightly larger or smaller box would actually perform better overall.


IMO 190 liters is slightly too much for the LMS. You will loose some mechanical power handling down low compared to a smaller box. You will gain some low-end sensitivity though. Based on my measurements, something around 110-130 liters is the sweet spot (mine is 110 liters effective).



> Why is it that the impedance maximum IE: about 27Hz, might be the danger point for cone excursion limits rather than the area from 10Hz to 25Hz? My system uses LOTS of power according to my amp's warning lights right around a very narrow peak of 27Hz.


Mark means that the amplifier can do some funny stuff when it's being pushed too far when the impedance is very low. Low impedance means high current and that is usually the limiting factor in amplifier output, not the voltage.

But I have found that the CE4000 is a very well-behaved amp. It can be clipped but it does it gracefully, unlike many cheaper AB class amps like the EP2500.


----------



## Ilkka

bobgpsr said:


> How are you guys getting an accurate interior volume measurement with window braces, PR's and the driver, etc volumes. Seems so in-exact unless you go in integral math extremes. :whew:
> 
> Or are we talking exterior measured box volume? Just curious -- I know want really matters in getting the model to match reality is the actual interior volume. Just that it is so hard to be sure of its value to an exact degree. Unless a lot of measurements and volume calcs were done for all the interior pieces.


Of course one doesn't know the *exact* net volume but that isn't necessary. 5 liters here or there doesn't yet affect anything, especially when talking about 100 liter or 200 liter total volume.

I have calculated the volume occupied by the bracing, and the PR/driver volumes are published on manufacturer's websites. How accurate are they? Probably not very but still enough. When I say that the sealed LMS enclosure is 110 liters, I mean 110 liters +/- 5 liters. That's enough accurate for anyone.


----------



## Ricci

jmcomp124 said:


> What makes you think it is PR limited.
> Have you tried a WinISD or Unibox or some other model that tells you this design is PR limited? If so, my modeling is incorrect and I have calibrate to yours.
> I have tried the model and I also have the box in real life. As I already mentioned, my observations with the box matches the model.
> If Ilkka's observations are different, then I would need to investigate this further and hence my questions on HP filters.
> I appreciate responses like yours but I want them to be backed by good reasons and not just "I think" or "would seem".
> I am data driven, let's put it that way.


I haven't modeled your EXACT set-up, no, but something close. In a 240l box tuned to 15.1 hz with 2kw and no filter, the driver doesn't get past linear xmax until about 12.8hz. The 2 pr's are already at 40mm xmax at 16hz and getting worse below 16hz. Yes this is just simulation and I don't own the real deal like you do, nor is it exact. That's just what I see when I simulate it.:dunno:


----------



## ISLAND1000

Ilkka said:


> IMO 190 liters is slightly too much for the LMS. You will loose some mechanical power handling down low compared to a smaller box. You will gain some low-end sensitivity though. Based on my measurements, something around 110-130 liters is the sweet spot (mine is 110 liters effective).
> 
> I modeled the 190L box with WinISD and adding the Linkwitz Transform option got what I thought was a good emulation of the PEQ on a Crown XTi amplifier. The resulting response curve looked excellent in the model.
> How close to reality was I when using the Linkwitz Transform option in WinISD to using the Crown PEQ in real life?


----------



## jmcomp124

Ilkka said:


> Hehee. Glad you found the problem.  Now, enjoy!
> 
> 
> I doubt you would bottom out them even if you would move the slider all the way down (10 Hz) now that you got your little problems solved out, but of course it wouldn't benefit you much either. A few dB more below 20 Hz won't yet do much difference.
> 
> 
> Can't you see that I'm smiling? :bigsmile:


One of these days, I will move that slider down to 16Hz and slowly approach limits and see what happens. The slider is still at 20Hz. I still think that the expolding THX ball that caused the sub to bottom out was a filter issue and not the other mistakes in the system settings (Prologic II should not cause it and also the 2nd Crown's filter at 30Hz would not have caused it either.


----------



## Ilkka

Ricci said:


> I haven't modeled your EXACT set-up, no, but something close. In a 240l box tuned to 15.1 hz with 2kw and no filter, the driver doesn't get past linear xmax until about 12.8hz. The 2 pr's are already at 40mm xmax at 16hz and getting worse below 16hz. Yes this is just simulation and I don't own the real deal like you do, nor is it exact. That's just what I see when I simulate it.:dunno:


Small signal simulations are one thing, real world situation is another. For example those simulations don't account for lesser compliance or lower Bl when the excursion goes higher.


----------



## Ilkka

> I modeled the 190L box with WinISD and adding the Linkwitz Transform option got what I thought was a good emulation of the PEQ on a Crown XTi amplifier. The resulting response curve looked excellent in the model.


I'm expecting that the response curve you mention was really flat down to the teens? That isn't always preferred or wanted due to huge excursion requirements and also because most rooms have some or a lot of room gain. If you add room gain to a subwoofer that already has a flat anechoic frequency response, you will get a so-called house curve which means that the frequency response rises towards the lower frequencies. Have you ever measured the actual in-room frequency response? I'm thinking maybe you don't need much LT with this sub.




> How close to reality was I when using the Linkwitz Transform option in WinISD to using the Crown PEQ in real life?


It depends how accurately you have modelled that LT on the Crown. It can be very accurate if done properly.


----------



## jmcomp124

Ricci said:


> I haven't modeled your EXACT set-up, no, but something close. In a 240l box tuned to 15.1 hz with 2kw and no filter, the driver doesn't get past linear xmax until about 12.8hz. The 2 pr's are already at 40mm xmax at 16hz and getting worse below 16hz. Yes this is just simulation and I don't own the real deal like you do, nor is it exact. That's just what I see when I simulate it.:dunno:


Yes we are pretty close and the box I have modeled is tuned at 15.3Hz. Thanks Ricci for taking the time to do this. Now we can have a more meaningful conversation since we have the same baseline.
Now let's throw some analysis into this...
1. No filter case.
Yes, PR reaches xmax at around 16Hz (beyond xmax is a moot point argument so we will stick to xmax, think Hooke's law, everything breaks loose and you see exponential increase in excursion).
Driver approaches xmax at 2 frequencies, one is at 22Hz and the other at 14Hz. 

2. Now apply a 2nd order BW at 16Hz.

What happens? Driver excursion at 22Hz still looking dangerously close to xmax. and there is another peak at 12Hz.
PR reaches xmax at around 14Hz.

In 1 and 2 above, which looks more vulnerable, driver or PR? I would say driver because of 2 points of failure (one at 22Hz and the others at 14/16Hz). The 22Hz being the more common case and probably the more dangerous "DRIVER KILLER".

3. Slide the filter now to 18Hz. Driver cone excursions and PR excursions begin to look safe.

4. Move it higher to 20Hz, looks very safe now!

Would I gain anything from moving to 20Hz to 18Hz in listening/feeling experience. I don't think the difference woudl be noticeable.

Does this make sense? Or are we still on different pages?
:foottap:


----------



## SteveCallas

If the sub is already -6db at 18.5hz with no filters, it won't make any difference. As frequency lowers, the output needs to be flat or rising in order to really be percievable - even if only tactile. For as good and clean as what you are experiencing is, if you had another octave of solid extension, the experience would be something else.


----------



## jmcomp124

SteveCallas said:


> If the sub is already -6db at 18.5hz with no filters, it won't make any difference. As frequency lowers, the output needs to be flat or rising in order to really be percievable - even if only tactile. For as good and clean as what you are experiencing is, if you had another octave of solid extension, the experience would be something else.


The experience with another octave of solid extension would be something else :yes:
If one had no limitations in space, an LLT tuned to 10Hz would be the way to go. But then, we are looking at boxes as large or larger than the Danley DTS-20. I didn't like that size when I owned one.


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> If the sub is already -6db at 18.5hz with no filters, it won't make any difference. As frequency lowers, the output needs to be flat or rising in order to really be percievable - even if only tactile. For as good and clean as what you are experiencing is, if you had another octave of solid extension, the experience would be something else.


I know we been around this issue already before, but that would be an interesting thing to test. How much of a subjective difference there is between, say, a solid (flat at the max output used) extension to 16 Hz and 10 Hz?

Also is one 18" LLT tuned to, say, 12 Hz powerful enough to produce those deep bass sensations in an "average" room? Or does it require multiples of them or something like the Thigpen rotary?


----------



## Ilkka

My thinking is that if one can a solid extension/output to 15-16 Hz using a 200 liter enclosure, extending the extension down to 10 Hz by multiplying the enclosure volume by *three* or more isn't worth it unless one really doesn't care about the enclosure volume. Also one should note that the lower tuning always reduces the headroom/output above the tuning frequency. And that's where the 99% of the bass spectaculars lie.

If Jai would like to have the same max output (I'm not even talking about the distortion) in the very important 20-40Hz range by using ~12 Hz tuned LLTs, he would have to have three of them. Now that's at least 1800 liters of enclosure volume!

I'm not against LLT per se, I'm only against pushing the Fb close to 10 Hz. By doing that the enclosure size explodes and one also reduces the output above the tuning.


----------



## SteveCallas

Back when I did that threshold of usefulness testing, it didn't take much from infrasonic sine waves to get things really shaking, so no, I definitely don't think a Thigpen is needed. Clean headroom above tuning shouldn't really be a problem to begin with using a high excursion 15" or 18" woofer, and with the prices of most of the options out there, building two is still cheaper than a decent commercial alternative. 



Ilkka said:


> How much of a subjective difference there is between, say, a solid (flat at the max output used) extension to 16 Hz and 10 Hz?


I think it would be highly dependent on material and room, and flat extension to 10hz vs 20hz should be percieved me thinks. 10hz to 16hz would be harder of course, and may only be put to the test 3% of the time, but if your headroom and cleanliness expectations are met above 20hz, the only way to go is down :R


----------



## Blaser

SteveCallas said:


> if your headroom and cleanliness expectations are met above 20hz, the only way to go is down :R


LOL! Yes this is definitely true :R. But if headroom is not enough, there will be more benefit of a 20 Hz tune IMO.


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> Back when I did that threshold of usefulness testing, it didn't take much from infrasonic sine waves to get things really shaking, so no, I definitely don't think a Thigpen is needed.


I remember your tests. Weren't you using pure sine waves? IMO that's is not a proper way to test it. The proper way would be to add a 16 Hz HP filter for example to your current sub and play some WOTW or M&C, and listen if one can clearly notice the difference between non high passed and high passed version. If you can notice it, then think if it's worth the two or three times larger enclosure? 



> Clean headroom above tuning shouldn't really be a problem to begin with using a high excursion 15" or 18" woofer


Oh I definitely think a single 15" LLT or even 18" isn't enough for a "high end" home theater. Only a week ago I was "tuning" a theater with a single 15" LLT (TC-2000). The output (around 115 dBC) that we got wasn't enough for the owner or to me to be honest. And the room wasn't larger than ~2500 cu ft (enclosed). So now he's probably upgrading to a dual 18" LLT, though the tune won't be lower than 15 Hz.  



> and with the prices of most of the options out there, building two is still cheaper than a decent commercial alternative.


Price is not the problem for many, size is. That's why you see many high priced small commercial subwoofers.



> I think it would be highly dependent on material and room, and flat extension to 10hz vs 20hz should be percieved me thinks. 10hz to 16hz would be harder of course, and may only be put to the test 3% of the time, but if your headroom and cleanliness expectations are met above 20hz, the only way to go is down :R


Yes...IF.


----------



## SteveCallas

Ilkka said:


> I remember your tests. Weren't you using pure sine waves? IMO that's is not a proper way to test it. The proper way would be to add a 16 Hz HP filter for example to your current sub and play some WOTW or M&C, and listen if one can clearly notice the difference between non high passed and high passed version. If you can notice it, then think if it's worth the two or three times larger enclosure?


That wasn't in respnse to whether we can detect the difference between extension to 10hz or 20hz, it was in response to your question on whether or not a 15" or 18" drver is enough to provide enough deep bass sensations in room or if we need a Thigpen. I'm saying we don't need a Thigpen.



> Oh I definitely think a single 15" LLT or even 18" isn't enough for a "high end" home theater. Only a week ago I was "tuning" a theater with a single 15" LLT (TC-2000). The output (around 115 dBC) that we got wasn't enough for the owner or to me to be honest. And the room wasn't larger than ~2500 cu ft (enclosed). So now he's probably upgrading to a dual 18" LLT, though the tune won't be lower than 15 Hz.


It varies from person to person. There was just a guy in one of these threads who actually felt a little silly building two TC2k LLTs because he says one is way more powerful than he will ever use. 115db with solid extension to the low teens should be enough for the majority of the folks out there, if not, again, a second is cheap. The headroom advantage one gains with a higher tuning is going to be highly dependent on the amplifier anyway, as the quasi TC2k LLT you tested was limited in max output by the amp clipping. 



> Price is not the problem for many, size is. That's why you see many high priced small commercial subwoofers.


Well that varies from person to person to. If you have space to play around with, the thing about a LLT is that allows you to extract the most balanced performance from a driver. If you don't have the space, you have to start making some compromises in performance. How much those compromises matter to you will vary from person to person.


----------



## jmcomp124

How would an LMS perform in an IB install?


----------



## SteveCallas

Same as it would in a sealed enclosure with a bit more low end sensitivity.


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> That wasn't in respnse to whether we can detect the difference between extension to 10hz or 20hz, it was in response to your question on whether or not a 15" or 18" drver is enough to provide enough deep bass sensations in room or if we need a Thigpen. I'm saying we don't need a Thigpen.


Well naturally I meant on program material, not pure sine waves. That's the real world situation.


> if not, again, a second is cheap.


Cheap and cheap, it's still twice the money. And like I have said, most people can't accommondate two large cylinders/boxes.


> The headroom advantage one gains with a higher tuning is going to be highly dependent on the amplifier anyway, as the quasi TC2k LLT you tested was limited in max output by the amp clipping.


I would appreciate if you wouldn't call it a quasi LL because if anything, a higher tune will have more output above the tuning than a lower tuned subwoofer. Or is there some other reason why you keep referring it as a quasi LLT?

And it definitely wasn't amp clipping. The woofer excursion in 20-30 Hz range was the limiting factor.


----------



## ISLAND1000

Ilkka said:


> I'm expecting that the response curve you mention was really flat down to the teens? That isn't always preferred or wanted due to huge excursion requirements and also because most rooms have some or a lot of room gain. If you add room gain to a subwoofer that already has a flat anechoic frequency response, you will get a so-called house curve which means that the frequency response rises towards the lower frequencies. Have you ever measured the actual in-room frequency response? I'm thinking maybe you don't need much LT with this sub.
> 
> 
> 
> The modeled response WAS exceptionally flat which makes the LMS and sealed boxes with LT and a powerful amp attractive.
> However, my listening environment has proven to absorb huge amounts of low frequency energy. I have not yet measured the in-room response while I'm still trying to find a place in the room where the box produces the best (most) volume. My estimate of the involved room volume runs somewhere around 15,000 cubic feet with a portion of the room height being 33 feet. I may be forced to install the box within a smaller portion of a 3 walled area and I'm guessing the "house curve" will then affect the overall response curve and I'll get that frequency rise .
> But the PEQ of the Crown can flatten a response curve as well as match a 12 db LT rise.


----------



## Ilkka

ISLAND1000 said:


> The modeled response WAS exceptionally flat which makes the LMS and sealed boxes with LT and a powerful amp attractive.
> However, my listening environment has proven to absorb huge amounts of low frequency energy. I have not yet measured the in-room response while I'm still trying to find a place in the room where the box produces the best (most) volume. My estimate of the involved room volume runs somewhere around 15,000 cubic feet with a portion of the room height being 33 feet. I may be forced to install the box within a smaller portion of a 3 walled area and I'm guessing the "house curve" will then affect the overall response curve and I'll get that frequency rise .
> But the PEQ of the Crown can flatten a response curve as well as match a 12 db LT rise.


Even though the LMS-5400 is a very strong driver, a fairly large enclosure and a 12 dB LT is usually a bad combination. Have you experienced any bottoming out?


----------



## SteveCallas

Ilkka said:


> Cheap and cheap, it's still twice the money. And like I have said, most people can't accommondate two large cylinders/boxes.


I dunno, looking at DIY subwoofer projects shared on these types of forums as a whole for the past couple years, "large" ones probably account for half. When you think about it, the footprint really isn't much if any larger for a "large" sub, as you can just build up vertically. The main reason I have encountered when people explain they can't build too big is because of their wife.



> Or is there some other reason why you keep referring it as a quasi LLT?


Tuning.



> And it definitely wasn't amp clipping. The woofer excursion in 20-30 Hz range was the limiting factor.


I've heard it both ways now - are you certain?


----------



## Blaser

Ilkka/Steve,

Are we going to spend all our night on this?:foottap: 

Ilkka,

If one has space (or elevation), and lots of headroom, the lower the tuning the better as the benefit would be that sub caracteristic would get closer to the qualities of a sealed sub.

Steve,

If space is an issue, and/or headroom will be negatively affected by a lower tune, a 20 Hz sub can still sound fantastic.

Pls let's pass...:hush:


----------



## Ricci

jmcomp124 said:


> Yes we are pretty close and the box I have modeled is tuned at 15.3Hz. Thanks Ricci for taking the time to do this. Now we can have a more meaningful conversation since we have the same baseline.
> Now let's throw some analysis into this...
> 1. No filter case.
> Yes, PR reaches xmax at around 16Hz (beyond xmax is a moot point argument so we will stick to xmax, think Hooke's law, everything breaks loose and you see exponential increase in excursion).
> Driver approaches xmax at 2 frequencies, one is at 22Hz and the other at 14Hz.
> 
> 2. Now apply a 2nd order BW at 16Hz.
> 
> What happens? Driver excursion at 22Hz still looking dangerously close to xmax. and there is another peak at 12Hz.
> PR reaches xmax at around 14Hz.
> 
> In 1 and 2 above, which looks more vulnerable, driver or PR? I would say driver because of 2 points of failure (one at 22Hz and the others at 14/16Hz). The 22Hz being the more common case and probably the more dangerous "DRIVER KILLER".
> 
> 3. Slide the filter now to 18Hz. Driver cone excursions and PR excursions begin to look safe.
> 
> 4. Move it higher to 20Hz, looks very safe now!
> 
> Would I gain anything from moving to 20Hz to 18Hz in listening/feeling experience. I don't think the difference woudl be noticeable.
> 
> Does this make sense? Or are we still on different pages?
> :foottap:


We are on the same page, just different paragraghs:R. I did want to clear up that Im not trying to talk you into changing your filter. You obviously heard something that was not right, and adding the filter cleared things up. I don't worry too much about bass below 16hz anyway.

There are a few things that I'm not seeing in my model that you are. The main thing is that I'm not seeing the LMS getting anywhere remotely close to xmax at 22hz until something like more than 3.35KW. There should be another 6mm of mechanical clearance after that. The other thing is **** you have 2 of these set-up's! I've forgotten were you running 1 CE4000 or 2?


----------



## ISLAND1000

Even though the LMS-5400 is a very strong driver, a fairly large enclosure and a 12 dB LT is usually a bad combination. Have you experienced any bottoming out?

As I was adjusting the Crown's PEQ using a Sheffield test disc and playing individual frequencies at at extreme volume, I 'believe' I soft bottomed the LMS at 25Hz. That's not where I expected it to happen. I was expecting it to happen below 20HZ.
I have avoided that amount of volume with the test disc and have yet to bottom the LMS on any HT or music approaching the 115db area.


----------



## Ilkka

> I've heard it both ways now - are you certain?


Sorry, I thought you meant the LLT I was talking about. I'm not 100% sure what was limiting factor during the 115 dB sweep you mean. It would need some further investigation and measurements. But it did a fairly loud noise so it must have at least soft bottomed out if not full metal to metal connection. Also like I have said before, the older surround will probably limit the excursion before hard bottoming out so that can also make such noise when stretched out really good.

But if we talk about the other LLT (though similar to the one I measured), it certainly was limited by the woofer excursion. We also tried a more powerful amp but the noise the woofer made happened exactly at the same level.


----------



## SteveCallas

blaser said:


> If one has space (or elevation), and lots of headroom, the lower the tuning the better as the benefit would be that sub caracteristic would get closer to the qualities of a sealed sub.


Without the low end distortion or dropoff in output of course :innocent:



Ilkka said:


> But if we talk about the other LLT (though similar to the one I measured), it certainly was limited by the woofer excursion. We also tried a more powerful amp but the noise the woofer made happened exactly at the same level.


Now I'm confused. I was referring only to the TC2k sonosub with ~17.5hz tune you tested during the previous sub shootout. I was just saying that since it appears it was amp limited for more headroom above tuning, a higher tune wouldn't really give you you much additional headroom - and 2000+ watts is a fair amount of power.


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> Now I'm confused. I was referring only to the TC2k sonosub with ~17.5hz tune you tested during the previous sub shootout. I was just saying that since it appears it was amp limited for more headroom above tuning, a higher tune wouldn't really give you you much additional headroom - and 2000+ watts is a fair amount of power.


It was tuned to 16.5 Hz.

Read my previous post again. It may have been soft bottoming out that caused the noise I heard during the GP session, not amp clipping. And when it comes to the other LLT we tested on program material, it definitely was excursion limited because much more powerful amp didn't help the situation.


----------



## Ilkka

Maybe it's best if you self can hear the sound it made.

http://personal.inet.fi/private/zipman/115.wav

There's the .wav file that was recorded. The left channel has the pure reference signal, the right channel has the actual mic input which you should listen to (turn balance all the way to the right).

Tell me if that doesn't sound at least soft bottoming out to you.


----------



## SteveCallas

Which is this other one you are referring to, the one you said you guys wanted more from after hitting 115db in room?


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> Which is this other one you are referring to, the one you said you guys wanted more from after hitting 115db in room?


Yes. And it was almost identical to the one I tested in my GP session. And if it would have been tuned to lower, we would have got something less.


----------



## Ilkka

Okay, back to topic.

This time I wanted to test the effects of the Linkwitz Transform circuit on a sealed subwoofer. I used the shelving and parametric filters on the DCX2496 to simulate the LT. I ended up using total of 4 filters and around 13-14 dB DC gain (~20-25x power). The F6 was around 11.5 Hz. 

Here's the FR I got. The subwoofer used was the LMS-5400 18" 100L sealed.


----------



## bobgpsr

Ilkka said:


> Here's the FR I got. The subwoofer used was the LMS-5400 18" 100L sealed.


And that is before the in-room response? :T Modeled, close mic'd or outdoor 2 pi measurment?

A little bit of room (moderate size not a huge room) gain and what do you get?

Very interesting. I need to put a RL-P18 to use. 100L sealed. Hmmm.


----------



## Ilkka

bobgpsr said:


> And that is before the in-room response? :T Modeled, close mic'd or outdoor 2 pi measurment?
> 
> A little bit of room (moderate size not a huge room) gain and what do you get?


That is outdoor 2pi 2meter measurement.



> Very interesting. I need to put a RL-P18 to use. 100L sealed. Hmmm.


I doubt the RL-p18 will be that pretty in a 100 liter. :innocent:


----------



## jmcomp124

Ricci said:


> We are on the same page, just different paragraghs:R. I did want to clear up that Im not trying to talk you into changing your filter. You obviously heard something that was not right, and adding the filter cleared things up. I don't worry too much about bass below 16hz anyway.
> 
> There are a few things that I'm not seeing in my model that you are. The main thing is that I'm not seeing the LMS getting anywhere remotely close to xmax at 22hz until something like more than 3.35KW. There should be another 6mm of mechanical clearance after that. The other thing is **** you have 2 of these set-up's! I've forgotten were you running 1 CE4000 or 2?


We will on the same paragraph soon .
I have 2 CE4000s and yes I have 2 of these awesome subs. :heehee:
The CE4K in bridged mono mode is a powerhorse of 2800watts and this depends on the AC line voltage. With 2800 watts my model shows the driver peak excursion at 12Hz at 35mm. At 22Hz, it is at 32mm.
I assume you modeled with 16Hz BW HP filter. 35mm is dangerously close to 38mm (more than 90%!!!).
Yes at 22Hz it is 6mm away but look at a ruler, these numbers on scale look scary. Account for modeling accuracy errors, do you see why I feel more comfortable with 20Hz?
I am glad I went with 2 of these monsters. I don't think 1 would have cut it for a bass addict like me :R


----------



## SteveCallas

Ilkka said:


> Here's the FR I got. The subwoofer used was the LMS-5400 18" 100L sealed.


Is the LMS prone to exponentially rising distortion with that type of boosting?


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> Is the LMS prone to exponentially rising distortion with that type of boosting?


When compared to unequalized option - naturally yes. There isn't a subwoofer in this world which wouldn't be. 

And this doesn't mean that the LT would be a bad thing. It's just that there is no free lunch.


----------



## Ricci

jmcomp124 said:


> We will on the same paragraph soon .
> I have 2 CE4000s and yes I have 2 of these awesome subs. :heehee:
> The CE4K in bridged mono mode is a powerhorse of 2800watts and this depends on the AC line voltage. With 2800 watts my model shows the driver peak excursion at 12Hz at 35mm. At 22Hz, it is at 32mm.
> I assume you modeled with 16Hz BW HP filter. 35mm is dangerously close to 38mm (more than 90%!!!).
> Yes at 22Hz it is 6mm away but look at a ruler, these numbers on scale look scary. Account for modeling accuracy errors, do you see why I feel more comfortable with 20Hz?
> I am glad I went with 2 of these monsters. I don't think 1 would have cut it for a bass addict like me :R


Actually I tried it with no filter at all. I do understand why you would want to raise your filter up for a little extra safe guarding. That's a lot of money and time invested in those subs and better safe than sorry. Especially if you are cranking around 2kw into each during peaks.


----------



## SteveCallas

Ilkka said:


> When compared to unequalized option - naturally yes. There isn't a subwoofer in this world which wouldn't be.


So then is it truely a linear motor technology, or just better than everything else currently available?


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> So then is it truely a linear motor technology, or just better than everything else currently available?


There isn't, and probably never will, such thing as truly linear motor technology, at least as long as we talk about the conventional speaker technology. Though the LMS is pretty close to linear (not just Bl) up to much higher levels (excursion and SPL) than any other driver I have ever measured.


----------



## ISLAND1000

Ilkka said:


> I ended up using total of 4 filters and around 13-14 dB DC gain (~20-25x power). The F6 was around 11.5 Hz."


Ilkka, what is the lowest frequency you can set a PEQ filter on the DCX 2496? 
The Crown has it's PEQ filter lower limit centered at 20HZ.


----------



## Ilkka

ISLAND1000 said:


> Ilkka, what is the lowest frequency you can set a PEQ filter on the DCX 2496?
> The Crown has it's PEQ filter lower limit centered at 20HZ.


Also 20 Hz.


----------



## Mark Seaton

SteveCallas said:


> Is the LMS prone to exponentially rising distortion with that type of boosting?


Steve,

As has been mentioned many times over in the past, the box and driver combination determine the distortion vs. frequency vs. input power (or from other perspective, swap input power for output SPL).

EQ on the input stage does not alter this relationship. Active feedback of any variety is the only way to alter this relationship. Also remember that BL linearity is hardly the only contributor to distortion.

EQ changes the measured frequency response, but it doesn't affect % distortion at a given frequency and SPL. You can approximate the distortion curves you would expect with the above frequency response directly from the measurements Ilkka has already taken.


----------



## SteveCallas

Mark said:


> EQ on the input stage does not alter this relationship


I don't believe my comment suggested it did. The LMS is advertised as being linear throughout its travel with constant BL - my comment was a bit tongue in cheek to express that this isn't really the case, though it is likely the best in this regard vs any other driver currently available.


----------



## Ilkka

Mark Seaton said:


> EQ changes the measured frequency response, but it doesn't affect % distortion at a given frequency and SPL. You can approximate the distortion curves you would expect with the above frequency response directly from the measurements Ilkka has already taken.


Naturally I measured the THD on both occasions: natural and LT, so we don't have to approximate anything. :yes:


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> I don't believe my comment suggested it did. The LMS is advertised as being linear throughout its travel with constant BL - my comment was a bit tongue in cheek to express that this isn't really the case, though it is likely the best in this regard vs any other driver currently available.


TC Sounds only said it has truly linear *Bl* (< 1% Bl deviation) throughout the whole 38mm of excursion (though later on changed that to 30mm; usually quoted 70.7% Xmax is still 38mm), not linear as a whole. Two other major sources for non-linearities (i.e. distortion) are compliance and inductance. At least the compliance induced distortion is higher than the Bl induced distortion (in this case).


----------



## Ilkka

I wish I could post the THD graphs for the LMS, but I don't want to give them away until the rest of the data is ready. :innocent:

But believe me, the THD levels are *really* low. :hail:


----------



## Ilkka

Mark Seaton said:


> EQ on the input stage does not alter this relationship. Active feedback of any variety is the only way to alter this relationship.


This reminded me of something. If AV Talk's and my THD measurements are even somewhat comparable, the TC Sounds LMS-5400 18" 100L sealed has lower distortion than the mighty Velodyne DD18 at any frequency, any output level. And it doesn't even have a fancy servo. 

So Steve, it IS a pretty d*mn (sorry, Sonnie) linear driver. :yes:


----------



## SteveCallas

Please don't take my sarcasm the wrong way, I realize it will likely be the lowest distortion driver any of us have ever seen.


----------



## Ilkka

SteveCallas said:


> Please don't take my sarcasm the wrong way, I realize it will likely be the lowest distortion driver any of us have ever seen.


There is no need for sarcasm because TC Sounds has never claimed that it would be a truly linear driver. Only Bl curve is truly linear between -30 and +30 mm excursion.


----------



## SteveCallas

Lol, ok, forget I said anything :daydream:


----------



## noah katz

Hi Mark,

"the box and driver combination determine the distortion vs. frequency vs. input power (or from other perspective, swap input power for output SPL)....Active feedback of any variety is the only way to alter this relationship."

Now that you mention it, I wonder why active feedback doesn't work better than it seems to.

It would seem if you built a rugged driver with a lot of excursion and power handling capability, the feedback would take care of the BL and suspension nonlinearity without the expense of fancy motor and suspension designs.


----------



## bobgpsr

noah katz said:


> Now that you mention it, I wonder why active feedback doesn't work better than it seems to.


Probably because feedback can only do so much otherwise the loop response would be poor if too much feedback was applied. IMO better as a tweak to get the last few % improvement for an already good system.

Trying to remember my servo courses from college. :scratchhead:


----------



## ISLAND1000

The amazing performance of the LMS driver has us all wondering what the final in-box power, response, and distortion figures are going to look like. Ilkka promises we won't be disappointed. If TC Sounds has put all that R&D and money into a driver only to sell maybe what, 500 units, what was their original goal? I'm aware they continue to make improvements in the original driver and now have it priced way out of the DIY market. Where are they going with this driver? Is there any news of a commercial sub using this driver? Is this driver destined to become a museum piece with only a small heard of individuals able to tell it's story?
I don't get it.


----------



## SteveCallas

They were planning to use it in a commercial sub that had 2 drivers and 4-6 PRs if I am not mistaken. Apparently you were going to have to sign a contract when purchasing it that stated TC isn't responsible for damage done to your house :sarcastic: Not sure how big the market is for a $5000+ subwoofer though.

If nothing else, this driver should help lead to improvements in subwoofer drivers in general over the next few years, as others either license the technology or work harder to create something more competitive. If TC finds themselves in hard times, they might be forced to license it for a reasonable fee, and we might see it used much more often.....perhaps in a more LLT orientated driver for less $$$ :cunning:


----------



## jmcomp124

SteveCallas said:


> They were planning to use it in a commercial sub that had 2 drivers and 4-6 PRs if I am not mistaken. Apparently you were going to have to sign a contract when purchasing it that stated TC isn't responsible for damage done to your house :sarcastic: Not sure how big the market is for a $5000+ subwoofer though.
> 
> If nothing else, this driver should help lead to improvements in subwoofer drivers in general over the next few years, as others either license the technology or work harder to create something more competitive. If TC finds themselves in hard times, they might be forced to license it for a reasonable fee, and we might see it used much more often.....perhaps in a more LLT orientated driver for less $$$ :cunning:


I originally was thinking something similar to the beast (2 drivers and 4 PRs). It only made sense to split it into 2 boxes (1 driver and 2 PRs) that gives more flexibility. At one time, I was not happy to pay $875 per driver especially when I didn't know how it would perform. It was a big question mark and people were just watching and waiting to see what would happen. Also the PR based design with the driver had no feedback from the DIY community. So I was nervous. Then with all the analysis and solid support from the DIY folks, I pulled the trigger and put these in boxes backed by solid power and boy when I heard it the first time, my very first impression was, these were worth every penny. Despite, wiring faults etc, the very first time, it simply sounded awesome. Then a few people jumped into the wagon and a few more of these pieces were built. Some were still complaining about the $875/driver price. Kept waiting and the well informed inevitable happened. Prices sky rocketed. TC did keep all of us informed about this well on time. 
If one can still buy this driver for a little over $1k, I would say still, go for it. It is when the price goes beyond $1.5K I begin to question, is it really worth it? Well, if it is the only one of its kind and the SQ is out of the world, maybe the higher price is justified. 
Bottomline, if one can find this for less than $1.5K, I would still say :T


----------



## jmcomp124

ULTRA-18?

Talking about competition, there is one company I have a lot of faith in and that is SVS. Time and again, they have matched or exceeded my expectations. I was in the market for 4 Ultra-13s when one day I decided to tread the DIY arena and things changed. Yes, SVS is a commercial, but they used to sell drivers as replacement parts. Do they sell them now?

During lengthy conversations with their awesome support folks, I was told that the Ultra-13 would be one amazing "linear" driver. Do we know more about this driver? How does it's linearity compare to the LMS? Is it based on linear motor technology too?

If it indeed is a mini LMS, then what the DIY community would be very interested is an Ultra-18 at competing prices.
I think SVS would have an edge over TC in terms of volume (parts production) because of the manufacturing and assembly being local. TC depends on shipments from across the sea. 

Question for Ed...
Are there any plans for an Ultra-18? Why not passive radiator designs for future products? 
The B4+ was an unconventional design but it had pretty good success as a product, didn't it. Would SVS be willing to sell just drivers and PRs and not just full-fledged boxes?
I know SVS may not need to get into these segments and you folks are already doing pretty well. But wouldn't that segment also be a growth opportunity?

Ilkka, 
In terms of linearity, how does the Ultra-13 compare to the LMS based on measurements. If there are results you can share that would be great!


----------



## SteveCallas

1.5k? :unbelievable: You could get four RL-p18s for that much, resulting in significantly greater capability.


----------



## jmcomp124

SteveCallas said:


> 1.5k? :unbelievable: You could get four RL-p18s for that much, resulting in significantly greater capability.


Same quality :huh:


----------



## jmcomp124

SteveCallas said:


> 1.5k? :unbelievable: You could get four RL-p18s for that much, resulting in significantly greater capability.


Also Steve, why does someone always have to keep reminding you about size :dizzy: Don't you see you are comparing 1 18" to 4 18" drivers?


----------



## SteveCallas

If you are fixated on going no larger than your current sub, I'm quite sure one could figure out a way to mount four RL-ps in the same size enclosure. Same quality? Highly unlikely, the four 18s should be superior in every way - we'll see in time.


----------



## ssabripo

I gotta go with SteveC on this one... (yes, I know, SHOCKER! :raped: )

i'm sorry, but the LMS5400, as good a driver as it is, aint worth $1.5k.......even for a relatively small size enclosure, 3 or 4 decent 18's would pretty much destroy it in almost all areas including distortion.

I only see one reason why one would spend that much on a single driver: They only had space for one relatively small sub and wanted one driver in it. :dunno:

I keep saying it, I really wish Thilo and the team at TC the absolute best....but these new pricing structures are just not gonna get them out of the red financial status. IMO, they should have taken a page out of Toshiba and their HD-DVD player sales this past week, and go all out......produce 200+ LMS5400's at $800 price range, put them on sale for 2 months, and it would start a good tidal wave. Partner with the likes of PE and make kits, etc.

but anyways.


----------



## jmcomp124

ssabripo said:


> I gotta go with SteveC on this one... (yes, I know, SHOCKER! :raped: )
> 
> i'm sorry, but the LMS5400, as good a driver as it is, aint worth $1.5k.......even for a relatively small size enclosure, 3 or 4 decent 18's would pretty much destroy it in almost all areas including distortion.
> 
> I only see one reason why one would spend that much on a single driver: They only had space for one relatively small sub and wanted one driver in it. :dunno:
> 
> I keep saying it, I really wish Thilo and the team at TC the absolute best....but these new pricing structures are just not gonna get them out of the red financial status. IMO, they should have taken a page out of Toshiba and their HD-DVD player sales this past week, and go all out......produce 200+ LMS5400's at $800 price range, put them on sale for 2 months, and it would start a good tidal wave. Partner with the likes of PE and make kits, etc.
> 
> but anyways.


Yes shocker :unbelievable:
I think I have made it clear several times, I don't agree with TCs pricing. $1.5K I mentioned is the absolute maximum, and sure I wouldn't pay that much. But something close to $1K (say $1100), still makes the LMS attractive. What something is worth is what people are willing to pay for and this is dictated by classic economics (cost, demand and availability being some of the major factors) . 
4 of these in a box, and that is 160lbs of drivers alone :scared:.
Even with the boxes I have and wheels, it is heavy as lead!
An IB setup with 4 sure makes the RLs more attractive. But boxes... 4 RLs for $1600 or 1 LMS-5400 for $1100 or 3 RLs?
My choice would be the LMS still.


----------



## SteveCallas

So let's say you go to a gas station and you are willing to spend $50. The guy tells you your options for that amount are 20 gallons of gas or 10 gallons of gas. 10 gallons does take up less space.....:whistling:


----------



## jmcomp124

SteveCallas said:


> So let's say you go to a gas station and you are willing to spend $50. The guy tells you your options for that amount are 20 gallons of gas or 10 gallons of gas. 10 gallons does take up less space.....:whistling:


So let's say you go to the dentist and you are willing to spend $500. The dentist tells you your options for that amount are getting one tooth pulled out or 2. 2 sounds like a better deal :rofl::rofl2:


----------



## ssabripo

jmcomp124 said:


> An IB setup with 4 sure makes the RLs more attractive. But boxes... 4 RLs for $1600 or 1 LMS-5400 for $1100 or 3 RLs?
> My choice would be the LMS still.


i guess that's where we differ. 3 RL's or Avalanche,s for $1100 for me anyday. Take your pick: large ported ebs, sealed, or better yet, 4 RL-P's in twin opposite firing boxes (a la Submerssive) for $1600 over the single LMS5400 18" anyday.

it would destroy it no matter how you slice it, other than footprint.

I'm sure driver technology will continue to evolve, and next year we will have a new bad boy in town, who knows. But I personally would not touch the LMS over $900 with a 10ft pole


----------



## Blaser

I think it is a matter of taste. The most important thing in this thread is these tests tell us which sub can do what. And opinions can vary...that does not necessarily mean someone is wrong.


----------



## jmcomp124

ssabripo said:


> i guess that's where we differ. 3 RL's or Avalanche,s for $1100 for me anyday. Take your pick: large ported ebs, sealed, or better yet, 4 RL-P's in twin opposite firing boxes (a la Submerssive) for $1600 over the single LMS5400 18" anyday.
> 
> it would destroy it no matter how you slice it, other than footprint.
> 
> I'm sure driver technology will continue to evolve, and next year we will have a new bad boy in town, who knows. But I personally would not touch the LMS over $900 with a 10ft pole


While comparing, we have to factor in total cost to own and volume. 4 RL-Ps in twin opposite firing boxes takes more volume and hence not a fair comparison. When I say total cost, I am alluding towards amplification cost and cost for boxes.
The LMS is not the be all end all of all woofers, but it sure is one unique machine even at a price of $1100. My point is that for a little over $1K it can still be part of the DIY game.


----------



## Avus_M3

You can almost buy 6 of the new "Q" based 18's with 30mm xmax, meant for IB from Ficaraudio (preliminary pricing)! This would net you ~43L displacement!!


----------



## bobgpsr

What a fun thread. I hope Sonnie and Ilkka don't get upset for us going off on DIY fantasties. 

Just a lousy 15" with two 18" PR DIY dillitent.


----------



## Sonnie

Sonnie: :foottap:

Ilkka: addle:


----------



## Ilkka

jmcomp124 said:


> Talking about competition, there is one company I have a lot of faith in and that is SVS. Time and again, they have matched or exceeded my expectations. I was in the market for 4 Ultra-13s when one day I decided to tread the DIY arena and things changed. Yes, SVS is a commercial, but they used to sell drivers as replacement parts. Do they sell them now?


They do no sell drivers to DIYers. That is what you meant, no? 



> During lengthy conversations with their awesome support folks, I was told that the Ultra-13 would be one amazing "linear" driver. Do we know more about this driver? How does it's linearity compare to the LMS? Is it based on linear motor technology too? If it indeed is a mini LMS, then what the DIY community would be very interested is an Ultra-18 at competing prices.


Stephen Ponte from SVS could probably tell you more about the driver itself, but if by "linear" you mean, does it have the same LMS VC/motor as the LMS-5400, the answer would be no.

It's a great driver but I wouldn't call it a mini LMS. Though if they would make a 15" or 18" version out of it and sell it, say, for $400-500, I'd definitely be all over it. I would rank it higher than for example the TC-2000.


----------



## jmcomp124

Ilkka said:


> They do no sell drivers to DIYers. That is what you meant, no?
> 
> 
> Stephen Ponte from SVS could probably tell you more about the driver itself, but if by "linear" you mean, does it have the same LMS VC/motor as the LMS-5400, the answer would be no.
> 
> It's a great driver but I wouldn't call it a mini LMS. Though if they would make a 15" or 18" version out of it and sell it, say, for $400-500, I'd definitely be all over it. I would rank it higher than for example the TC-2000.


Several years ago, I vaguely recall seeing drivers on sale on the SVS site. Was I :daydream:?
By linear I mean fairly constant good BL for more than 75% of Xmax and graceful degradation to Xmax. 
It cannot have the same LMS VC/motor being patented, so I already knew the answer for that.


----------



## Ilkka

jmcomp124 said:


> Several years ago, I vaguely recall seeing drivers on sale on the SVS site. Was I :daydream:?


They were there for upgrading purposes i.e. for example when the new Ultra (TV12) driver came out. Owners of the older Ultra driver could buy the new driver. But that won't work nor happen anymore when it comes to the newest Ultra driver.

The NSD and Plus series drivers are still available for all who want to upgrade their older drivers.



> By linear I mean fairly constant good BL for more than 75% of Xmax and graceful degradation to Xmax.
> It cannot have the same LMS VC/motor being patented, so I already knew the answer for that.


One would need to Klippel it for a definitive answer but based on its distortion measurements, I'd say its linearity is above average. Though again I will remind that the Bl non-linearity is only one reason for distortion.


----------



## brent_s

jmcomp124 said:


> Several years ago, I vaguely recall seeing drivers on sale on the SVS site. Was I :daydream:?


No, in fact the drivers are still listed under parts and accessories. You just have to be a registered SVS owner to purchase one as an upgrade or out of warranty replacement. However, with their various upgrade offers, a number of SVS drivers have made it into the DIY market...one fellow I spoke with has managed to acquire something like 16 of the 12.1 and 12.2 plus drivers.

-Brent


----------



## Ricci

Avus_M3 said:


> You can almost buy 6 of the new "Q" based 18's with 30mm xmax, meant for IB from Ficaraudio (preliminary pricing)! This would net you ~43L displacement!!


I agree. Why mess around with one LMS or 4 RLP's. If space is not an issue why not just spend a few more dollars and get 16 Mach5 MJ18's?


----------



## Avus_M3

Ricci said:


> I agree. Why mess around with one LMS or 4 RLP's. If space is not an issue why not just spend a few more dollars and get 16 Mach5 MJ18's?


Because I feel the MJ18's are a poor choice for an IB and 4 18's in an IB doesn't take much space. So I will :daydream: while I do more :reading: before I :spend: so I can get the most :yay: for my buck. Of course my wife thinks I am :coocoo: and :dumbcrazy:. I am just a :nerd: and like to do research.

**Sorry seeing how many :bigsmile:'s I can get while I go :wits-end:.


----------



## jmcomp124

Ilkka,
Any updates?


----------



## Ilkka

jmcomp124 said:


> Ilkka,
> Any updates?


Well let's just say that we are getting closer each day, not quite there yet though. Please try to be patient. :hide:


----------



## Avus_M3

Get anything "special" in the mail yet?


----------



## Ilkka

Avus_M3 said:


> Get anything "special" in the mail yet?


Not yet.


----------



## jmcomp124

Ilkka said:


> Well let's just say that we are getting closer each day, not quite there yet though. Please try to be patient. :hide:


I want an icon for :beg: :scratchchin:. Come on Ilkka, give us an ETA. I know you want to compile that huge amount of data all by yourself. Why not delegate? I also know that you are concerned about bugs that are inevitable when you delegate, but hey, delegate by choosing reliable helping hands. There are always volunteers. Still patiently :waiting:.............................................................
Get that ball rolling buddy, we are all curious about the final results. While this may sound like putting pressure, it is more of "anticipation", "thankfulness" and "frustration" all in one combination of ambivalence. So when do we get to see it?


----------



## Ricci

Maybe it's already done and Illka's just waiting for the holiday's to roll around so he can make it a Christmas present for all of us!:joke:


----------



## jmcomp124

Ricci said:


> Maybe it's already done and Illka's just waiting for the holiday's to roll around so he can make it a Christmas present for all of us!:joke:


Usually when Ilkka is quiet for this long (more than 24hrs) after a provocative post like mine, it means he is going to reward us. BTW, I like opening my Christmas presents early. Yes bad boy :hide:


----------



## Ilkka

jmcomp124 said:


> I want an icon for :beg: :scratchchin:. Come on Ilkka, give us an ETA. I know you want to compile that huge amount of data all by yourself. Why not delegate? I also know that you are concerned about bugs that are inevitable when you delegate, but hey, delegate by choosing reliable helping hands. There are always volunteers. Still patiently :waiting:.............................................................
> Get that ball rolling buddy, we are all curious about the final results. While this may sound like putting pressure, it is more of "anticipation", "thankfulness" and "frustration" all in one combination of ambivalence. So when do we get to see it?





jmcomp124 said:


> Usually when Ilkka is quiet for this long (more than 24hrs) after a provocative post like mine, it means he is going to reward us. BTW, I like opening my Christmas presents early. Yes bad boy :hide:


Hi Jai,

OR he's just so busy that he doesn't have time to write here. :blink:

Delegation has its own problems. First I would had to teach what he should do and how. That takes A LOT of time, believe me. Secondly I would still have to double check all the data because I'm pretty **** when it comes to accurate data. So when combining these two, it wouldn't speed up the process at all.

The only way to make things happen faster would be me starting to do these tests as a professional. If I would be properly paid, I could do these as my daily job. The second option would be a new kind of software that would give me more 'ready' results than the current ones. But again that costs a lot of money.

I'm not willing to give an exact date because then people will just get even more mad if the ETA doesn't hold. I can say it will still be a year 2007 when they will come out.


----------



## mojomike

Ilkka said:


> I can say it will still be a year 2007 when they will come out.


What time zone are we talking about? :joke:


----------



## jmcomp124

Ilkka said:


> Hi Jai,
> 
> OR he's just so busy that he doesn't have time to write here. :blink:
> 
> Delegation has its own problems. First I would had to teach what he should do and how. That takes A LOT of time, believe me. Secondly I would still have to double check all the data because I'm pretty **** when it comes to accurate data. So when combining these two, it wouldn't speed up the process at all.
> 
> The only way to make things happen faster would be me starting to do these tests as a professional. If I would be properly paid, I could do these as my daily job. The second option would be a new kind of software that would give me more 'ready' results than the current ones. But again that costs a lot of money.
> 
> I'm not willing to give an exact date because then people will just get even more mad if the ETA doesn't hold. I can say it will still be a year 2007 when they will come out.


Ilkka,
I understand. Thanks for putting up with my repeated requests and for patiently responding to my post. "Even more mad"???? I don't think anyone is mad at you now to be "more mad". To say the least, we are so very thankful to you. I like it that you are cautious about posting results. It is not you, just the circumstances of the delay that is putting me in this anticipation mode. I so much want to see those charts :nerd: but I will wait. I agree, get it accurate and right, the very first time.
Take care,
-Jai


----------



## Ilkka

http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...ts-round-5-6th-october-2007-test-summary.html

Results are now in, enjoy!

Happy holidays! :yay:


----------



## warpdrive

Nice. Got some reading to do. Happy holidays to you too for all the hard work you put into it


----------



## ISLAND1000

Thank you Ilkka it's a beautiful Christmas present. Merry Christmas to you.
Phil


----------



## Blaser

Ilkka!

You are still and always the best!!

Appreciate very much your efforts. It is really a good thing to know what these subs can really do as opposed to only getting information from their manufacturers.

Happy End of Year!


----------



## dieselpower1966

Ilkka,
I'm wondering if you'll be able to test the new dual sub setup from Emotiva, the DRS-1?
It's coming out in January 08', and I'm waiting on the results of a few in depth reviews.
Keep up the great work.
John


----------



## Ilkka

Hi all,

I'm heading out on a short New Year holiday so I won't be online for a few days. But when I'm back, I will tackle all the questions regarding the subwoofers measurements you have made. :boxer:

Happy New Year to everyone!


----------



## chengbin

Ilkka, when will the personal comments on each sub be available for the round 5 results? Also some round 4 sub's is missing comments too.


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S

Very nice, in-depth work Ilkka!
Maybe I missed it already being talked about, but do you plan on testing any eD's or Epik's besides the Conquest?


----------



## Ilkka

chengbin said:


> Ilkka, when will the personal comments on each sub be available for the round 5 results? Also some round 4 sub's is missing comments too.


I'll try to complete those during the following week. Please try to understand that even though I wouldn't write more than ~1500 chars per subwoofer, but when one multiplies that by 18 (round 5), it becomes quite a task. :surrender:


----------



## Ilkka

E-A-G-L-E-S said:


> Very nice, in-depth work Ilkka!
> Maybe I missed it already being talked about, but do you plan on testing any eD's or Epik's besides the Conquest?


Besides the Conquest? Epik's amps are not 230V compatible, so until Chad resolves that issue, I can't test them.

When it comes to eD, their amps are 230V compatible but the "company policy" doesn't support third party/objective testing. I have contacted them several times but they are not interested in sending any of their products and thus supporting my tests in any way. Also there aren't any privately (end-user) owned eD subwoofers in Finland (at least yet), so also that option isn't viable.

You should try to push each company if you want to see their products being tested by me.


----------



## JimP

This raises the question of "why wouldn't a company support objective measurements". The only answer I can come up with is that it wouldn't perform as well as some of the competition and they wouldn't want that fact to float to the surface. Too bad too as I've heard some good things about eD subs.


----------



## mike c

maybe because they can't even serve the orders coming in ... if i were eD, i'd serve the paying customers first.


----------



## Ilkka

mike c said:


> maybe because they can't even serve the orders coming in ... if i were eD, i'd serve the paying customers first.


Yes, that's what they are saying. But it's slightly strange that they don't realize that a good review could boost up the sales dramatically.


----------



## mike c

again, why need the boost in sales, when they're 2 months behind already 

maybe when they've caught up.

i do have an order with eD pending  shipping costs quoted is terrible.


----------



## Ilkka

mike c said:


> again, why need the boost in sales, when they're 2 months behind already


If that's how they really think, then they will never grow really large. If they have more orders than they can deliver, it means they need to expand.


----------



## mike c

then you'd need more capital. more capital means higher prices. higher prices mean less sales.

i think they're trying to expand. but they're doing it their way.

i think it's a business decision on their part. you and I can't second guess them on how to run their business.

also, until someone over there actually buys one, shipping back and forth is killer. i just don't see why somebody in the US can't do the same tests ...



> But it's slightly strange that they don't realize that a good review could boost up the sales dramatically


one of the reasons they're backordered is because they do have good reviews from users.


----------



## JimP

I don't know of any business that wouldn't want more sales and expansion isn't a bad thing. It generally means you can hire people to do what the owners have tried to do themselves and more profits for the owners. What nutcase wouldn't want to do that?

They're probably more concerned that they'll loose sales if their product doesn't perform as well as others through objective measurements. If not, then why their policy?


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S

Ilkka said:


> Besides the Conquest? Epik's amps are not 230V compatible, so until Chad resolves that issue, I can't test them.
> 
> When it comes to eD, their amps are 230V compatible but the "company policy" doesn't support third party/objective testing. I have contacted them several times but they are not interested in sending any of their products and thus supporting my tests in any way. Also there aren't any privately (end-user) owned eD subwoofers in Finland (at least yet), so also that option isn't viable.
> 
> You should try to push each company if you want to see their products being tested by me.



Oh, the rest of all these subs were free, I didn't know that, my bad.
Wouldn't you be able to sell any eD sub you order though? I realize that can be a pain, just a thought.


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S

JimP said:


> This raises the question of "why wouldn't a company support objective measurements". The only answer I can come up with is that it wouldn't perform as well as some of the competition and they wouldn't want that fact to float to the surface. Too bad too as I've heard some good things about eD subs.



I'm not sure about that. My A5-350 stomps in every which way my SVS 20-39PCi(i know, less power smaller driver...but same price) and it also stomps the PB-12NSD which I've heard auditioned.
The Epik's may be better, but for non-diy types it is hard to beat the performance cost of eD.
-ime


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S

JimP said:


> I don't know of any business that wouldn't want more sales and expansion isn't a bad thing. It generally means you can hire people to do what the owners have tried to do themselves and more profits for the owners. What nutcase wouldn't want to do that?
> 
> They're probably more concerned that they'll loose sales if their product doesn't perform as well as others through objective measurements. If not, then why their policy?



The way it was expressed to me was that they are afraid QC will suffer. Could be b.s., but didn't seem so.


----------



## Ilkka

E-A-G-L-E-S said:


> Oh, the rest of all these subs were free, I didn't know that, my bad.
> Wouldn't you be able to sell any eD sub you order though? I realize that can be a pain, just a thought.


Most of the subs I have tested have been privately owned. Only a handful of subs have been bought or loaned by the subwoofer manufacturers.

I would probably be able to sell the eD subs, but not for a full price, and of course shipping these heavy objects from the USA isn't exactly cheap.


----------



## mike c

JimP said:


> I don't know of any business that wouldn't want more sales and expansion isn't a bad thing. It generally means you can hire people to do what the owners have tried to do themselves and more profits for the owners. What nutcase wouldn't want to do that?
> 
> They're probably more concerned that they'll loose sales if their product doesn't perform as well as others through objective measurements. If not, then why their policy?


they've actually hired more people, and is looking to lease some new space.

but regarding concern about losing sales because their product wouldn't perform well ... isn't that a bit too much guessing on our part?


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S

Ilkka said:


> Most of the subs I have tested have been privately owned. Only a handful of subs have been bought or loaned by the subwoofer manufacturers.
> 
> I would probably be able to sell the eD subs, but not for a full price, and of course shipping these heavy objects from the USA isn't exactly cheap.




Sure would be! I wish you were not overseas as I would gladly lend you my eD.
And once againm, thank you so much for your efforts on these tests!


----------



## JimP

mike c said:


> ...snip...
> 
> but regarding concern about losing sales because their product wouldn't perform well ... isn't that a bit too much guessing on our part?


Guessing on my part, perhaps. But when you have a policy that discourages objective testing, what do you think most people are going to believe?

If on the other hand, a manufacturer sent a copy of each sub to Ikka for testing at no charge, we'd be complaining that they were cherry picked.


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S

JimP said:


> Guessing on my part, perhaps. But when you have a policy that discourages objective testing, what do you think most people are going to believe?



How about owners?


----------



## chengbin

The comments for the JL f113 is up.


----------



## Ilkka

chengbin said:


> The comments for the JL f113 is up.


Well not exactly.  Those are just my reply to the questions being asked. My official comments on the results are still be worked out.


----------



## chengbin

Please tell us when the comments are up. Thanks.


----------



## Picture_Shooter

Ilkka
- You think you ever would like to test the Cadence CSX-15 sub?

The amp looks like it will do 220v









Here: http://www.cadencestore.com/ProductCart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=137&idproduct=398

I would love to see you test on this puppy.


----------



## dieselpower1966

does any one have the Cadence csx-15 subwoofer that Picture Shooter is talking about?

dieselpower1966


----------



## Ilkka

Picture_Shooter said:


> Ilkka
> - You think you ever would like to test the Cadence CSX-15 sub?
> 
> The amp looks like it will do 220v
> 
> Here: http://www.cadencestore.com/ProductCart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=137&idproduct=398
> 
> I would love to see you test on this puppy.


If they are willing to ship to Finland and the shipping doesn't cost a fortune, it might be possible. I'll look into it.


----------



## Picture_Shooter

dieselpower1966 said:


> does any one have the Cadence csx-15 subwoofer that Picture Shooter is talking about?
> 
> dieselpower1966


Here is a small review:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=973971

These are the pics / copy & Paste from original post link below:


----------



## Picture_Shooter

Ilkka said:


> If they are willing to ship to Finland and the shipping doesn't cost a fortune, it might be possible. I'll look into it.


That would be sweet if Cadence will come through. Let us know what they say?

Thanks


----------



## chengbin

IIkka, still no comments?


----------



## Picture_Shooter

Been out for a while, overall; I still love my Cadence


----------



## JimP

Anyone else notice those spikes under the sub in contact with what looks like a hardwood floor.


----------



## JimP

First thing that I saw.


----------

