| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Audio Discussions » Constructing LF modules to the limits (55 posts, 3 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 3 of 3 (55 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Bass drivers inquiry..  Re: To free up the 6C33.......  Audio Discussions  Forum     10  78275  08-12-2005
  »  New  NOhorn channel for “the melody range”...  Curbing the enthusiasm...  Audio Discussions  Forum     10  109527  09-19-2005
  »  New  Macondo Alternation. Extending the LF line-array..  Macondo and not only Macondo positioning...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     8  134877  10-29-2005
  »  New  Exceptional loudspeakers drivers..  Compression tweeters...  Audio Discussions  Forum     34  378861  06-12-2006
  »  New  Macondo’s lowest channel...  What truly are you tryin to accomplish?...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     150  1232986  09-15-2010
09-26-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Jorge
Austin TX
Posts 141
Joined on 10-17-2010

Post #: 41
Post ID: 17077
Reply to: 17076
Apples and Oranges
fiogf49gjkf0d

We should define some borders here; LF, when you have an UBH, should be from  around 100 hz down to 30 hz,  where the last fundamental tone of an instrument is played.  ULF should be under 25-20hz.

I would say that a driver playing 25-30 hz should not go over 100 hz, as tone becomes very important there. 

Most of us are using some sort of cabinet for the LF range.  Romy was using the Scanspeak up to 75 hz crossed to his UBH,  Haralanov is using those wonderful 23" woofers on an infinite bafle, and Jessie is using the McCauley 18" woofer on some sort of concrete coffin!

Romy is now using midbass horns to cover this LF range,  but he needed to change his house in order to achieve this; Talk about an upgrade, a MB horn with swimming pool inlcuded!!

Haralanov solution looks wonderful,  but given the sheer size of his Infinite Bafle and the construction planned, would it not be better to make a Big horn instead?  Of course he uses an open bafle midrange and is not into horns, so for him this is the right solution,  but If we do use horns...

I could be wrong as usual, the law of diminishing returns for going from 6 woofers to 8 woofers for a tower that you cannot listen,  that starts at 20 hz and under, it might be getting to the that point!  Of course if vibration is needed the more area the better,  but how much? 

Now adding more woofers in the LF range is good until it gets so big and complicated, that adding a time aligned Mid bass horn would actually be simpler!

I think  would go for the Horn most of the times!

09-26-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,407
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 42
Post ID: 17078
Reply to: 17077
From 30 to 20 Hz In Just a Few Keys
fiogf49gjkf0d
Can we really say that the "lowest fundamental" from an orchestra is 30 Hz?  I sort of wish it were true!

Something I think we can all agree on is that hi-fi tends to suffer from lower fundamentals and harmonics that are not properly proportioned, and -  in the case of LF -  the lower fundamentals and harmomnics may well be MIA. However, at LF it is not sufficient - in terms of Music - to simply pump the "flat" response into the room, but the "flat" response "result" must come from  properly-balanced response/production "at the source", eg, the speaker (or -  more properly -  the driver).  The bitch in terms of "reproduction" is that Music doesn't "hold back" at LF (quite the contrary...), but to "reproduce" LF we have to go through more and more mechanical and electronic gyrations as the frequency drops, even 1/2 octave, exponentially so, relative to MF or HF.

Again, adding woofers will only get you so much at LF.  Mere "gain" is not enough.  For Music there has to be Tone, and I think in the end this will only come from "proper" sound from the (single) LF driver.  If one had the room, who would not choose IB for LF? How might "IB" be well implemented in a home?

Best regards,
Paul S
09-26-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,966
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 43
Post ID: 17079
Reply to: 17077
Most of us are using…
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Jorge wrote:
…Most of us are using some sort of cabinet for the LF range.  Romy was using the Scanspeak up to 75 hz crossed to his UBH,  Haralanov is using those wonderful 23" woofers on an infinite bafle, and Jessie is using the McCauley 18" woofer on some sort of concrete coffin!
 Iwould like to remind the user that this is not DIYAudio website and collaboration of the methods is only a small fraction of objectives. Would it be small coffins, large coffins, horns, open baffles or infinite baffles, that all does not describe and does not define the bass that any of us are getting.
 
People looks like obsessed with technological aspect of having less compromised bass, there is nothing wrong with it but the perusing the non-compromise bass doe not necessarily assures the proper bass in real listening environment. What I am trying to say is that besides all technical and exoteric justifications I would like more to hear about your thoughts regarding the lower bass and how do you find your bass is different from the bass that you feel would be satisfying to you. Do not forget that we all shot in the very different targets until we know that we shot in the same target….
 
The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-27-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
noviygera


Chicago, IL
Posts 174
Joined on 06-12-2009

Post #: 44
Post ID: 17080
Reply to: 17068
Some thoughts in a positive direction
fiogf49gjkf0d
Petar,

I thought for along time how to reply to your post. All my thoughts basically narrow down to this. You're a soulful guy. There is nothing smart I can say to add or subtract to you findings but I think that the result you will finally get from your LF "end of all searching" is a very refined and "soulful" signal reproducer. That's good to know because this "soulful" characteristic of sound has not been explicitly described anywhere -- as means AND the end of getting to the righteous result but now there is a rough guide.

So this 23" multiple woofers project of yours is part of the means to the goal. I believe that the infinite baffle is also a good idea. It will take you in the right direction but do not mount those woofers behind your listening position. I tried that and it's tonally good but it's confusing as hell to the brain even if crossed over 80-100hz, still confusing. Put them in front or on sides, where the main channels are. That's my experience.

Also, there must be a good ratio between the speaker cone area and listening room volume to get proper tonal pressurization of the listening room. What that area is I do not know but it is a lot more that two 23" woofers for a normal sized room, I believe (see ps note). I'd like to try at LEAST two per channel, positioned behind each channel.

Since you strike me as a person of soul, I would love to hear your result from using those 23" woofers. If they are good, why not make more and sell them.
I am currently looking at multiples of 18" to 24" woofers (Precision Devices or Hartley), even wondering about that 31" Fostex.

Thank you for your reply.

Herman

p.s from my experience of having a 500 sq. ft. listening room with 7 ft. ceiling and having two 18" woofers in a infinite baffle configuration, it is not enough to pressurize the room. I am talking about low and medium listening levels. Four 18" would be just acceptable. Eight 18" woofers in infinite baffle will be good for a 500 sq. ft. room so there is your rough ratio according to my experience.




09-27-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
be
Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts 86
Joined on 02-12-2007

Post #: 45
Post ID: 17081
Reply to: 17080
Is there any tone in the ULF range?
fiogf49gjkf0d
It seem that the concensus here is that there is no tone in the ULF range, something like below 50Hz.

This is probably not true for live acoustical instruments.

Physical systems that can be described by non linear differential equations, are known to produce subharmonics of there fundamental frequency, combination frequencies of these and the harmonics and on top of this: harmonics of the forementionned!

Acoustical instruments are highly nonlinear mechanical devices and does indeed demonstrate these phenomena:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subharmonics

Further, some instrument has an almost DC component as well, try to say the letter sound of "P" loudly.

Rgds.
be
09-27-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,966
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 46
Post ID: 17082
Reply to: 17081
Sorry, they are incorrect premises.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 be wrote:
It seem that the concensus here is that there is no tone in the ULF range, something like below 50Hz.

The range “below 50Hz” is not ULF range. Below 50Hz is regular LF or regular bass region. The whole definition if ULF is that ULF is the LF message that is not registered and recognized as sound. Playing ULF you shall not be able to not only recognize music but to be able to say in most of the case the music even is placing. If you can say what is being played by ULF then it was not ULF but regular bass channel. In my estimation ULF stars around 25Hz with shaper then 2 order filter.

So, the most of what being discussed in thread there is not ULF but bass channel. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it and in some cases the bass channels might do low enough that ULF would not be necessary. Still, I feel that question tone in ULF range is like cooking a soup with poisoned mushrooms and to think about a proper amount of salt in it.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-27-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,407
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 47
Post ID: 17083
Reply to: 17081
Another Look at the "Problem" (and Branding)
fiogf49gjkf0d
Be, thanks for bringing  up the "subharmonics" in the way that you have done, for another good look at the elusive-to-hi-fi "undertones".  I have been bitching about and futzing with this for ages, and now am I working with the drivers, themselves, to better understand and address this (among other things).  Yes, this "structure" certainly exists in life, as those with ears can hear, and it won't be dismissed, nor (IMO) can it be "simulated" with electronic boost, at least not with Musical integrity.  No, to get this right for Tone, it has to be gotten right from the "beginning".  The Idea is to hang on to as much as possible without effing up something else to the point of diminishing returns.

Herman, the pressure is certainly something that can work both with and against other LF "features", and I think the "balance" can only be gotten with the "Serious Music".  I agree (at this time...) that for LF, "more is better" at "the source".  By this I mean that nothing about Romy's "20 dB Axiom" changes at LF, except it is MUCH harder to do "properly" at LF. Typically, we see/hear what amounts to an "inverted" version of the "LF" driver's output, achieved by some combination of amplification and attenuation.  Or, we see/hear the "thunder machines" that have nothing whatsoever to do with Music.  Of course, it's up to each of us to decide how we will deal with the many conflicting LF issues.  Just now, my "thing" is Tone, as I have described extensively.  Generally speaking (and I'm sure you agree), I think anyone could draw closer to a personal solution if he knew more about the "qualities of Sound" that make the Music he wants (and expects) to hear, as opposed to trying to figure out "which brand is best".

As for ULF, I mostly agree with Romy, and I think there is already some pretty good information in the GSC ULF threads, right now.

Best regards,
Paul S
09-27-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,966
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 48
Post ID: 17084
Reply to: 17080
What is your reasoning?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 noviygera wrote:
p.s from my experience of having a 500 sq. ft. listening room with 7 ft. ceiling and having two 18" woofers in a infinite baffle configuration, it is not enough to pressurize the room. I am talking about low and medium listening levels. Four 18" would be just acceptable. Eight 18" woofers in infinite baffle will be good for a 500 sq. ft. room so there is your rough ratio according to my experience.

Herman, I would like to ask what methodological reasoning you uses to assess that your room of 500 sq feet having two 18" woofers in a infinite baffle it is not enough? Do you feel that not enough bass? You do not have more power or gain in your amplification? Do your drivers excurt too much? Do you hear too high distortions or compression?  Do you have measurements in the room at the frequencies that you are interested in?

The reason I ask as I feel that 4x 18 inchers for 500sq feet room is certainly wonderful but it is nowhere near absolute minimum. A good pair of 416/515 drivers with moderate 40Hz would perfectly fine for 500 sq. ft. Sure the more drivers and more size is better but when we do it we just minimize the excursion of each driver and improve sound by spreading all problem across multiple transducers allowing each transducer to be not as good as a single driver. Anyhow, I would be interested to know how you came to the concussion you have came. 
 
The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-27-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,966
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 49
Post ID: 17085
Reply to: 17080
Full-back position for LF
fiogf49gjkf0d
 noviygera wrote:
… but do not mount those woofers behind your listening position. I tried that and it's tonally good but it's confusing as hell to the brain even if crossed over 80-100hz, still confusing. Put them in front or on sides, where the main channels are. That's my experience.
Cut shorter with Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, Ravel and R. Strauss and movie to Brahms, Bruckner Beethoven and Bach. You will very fast minimize the brain confusion with location of your woofers behind your listening position. Also, you need to have very prodigious crossover point and very accurately set volume with mandatory from channels “override” to facilitate the back position. I however did not experiment with full-back position but back-above position but I think with full-back it still might be double. If you would like I might elaborate about back position for LF in a separate thread.
 


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-28-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
be
Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts 86
Joined on 02-12-2007

Post #: 50
Post ID: 17089
Reply to: 17082
The point..
fiogf49gjkf0d

It is difficult to say below what frequency there is no sound registered, the lowest fundamental on a double bass is 41Hz and the A0 on a grand piano is 27Hz, both these fundamentals and at least one harmonic  thereof would probably be recognizable with a 25Hz second order filter.

The violinist Mari Kimura can with her instrument produce sub harmonics one octave lower than the fundamental of violin. Something similar might sometimes happen with other instruments to.

 The movements of the musicians is often heard or felt because the stage floor of a concert hall. The stage floor would have a fundamental frequency of maybe 5Hz, with the first 2-3 harmonics below 25Hz.

All this does not support the idea to call below 25Hz ULF based on the tone of reproduced acoustical  instruments.

Instead of defining the ULF range from the reproduced instruments, it is much smarter to do it based on the first resonance frequency of the listening room, because the frequency response of a closed room has a 12dB/oct rise in frequency response, due to the cavity effect starting approximately half a octave below the fundamental mode of the room.

This effect could be balanced by the natural 12dB/oct. fall in response of a closed box speaker, with a Qts of app. 0.7 and below its resonance frequency.

If the listening room is not leaky and with solid walls, a flat response down to a few Hz might be possible without equalizer.

Obviously one does not have to cross to a ULF channel below the fundamental frequency of the room to use this effect, but then the knee/ resonance frequency of the closed box should be placed there.

Rgds
09-28-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
be
Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts 86
Joined on 02-12-2007

Post #: 51
Post ID: 17090
Reply to: 17038
Paper cones
fiogf49gjkf0d
Hi Haralanow.

Do you have some special source for your paper cones and voice coils that others could use? 

Rgds.
be
09-28-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,966
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 52
Post ID: 17091
Reply to: 17089
Different players in the auditable game
fiogf49gjkf0d

 be wrote:
Instead of defining the ULF range from the reproduced instruments, it is much smarter to do it based on the first resonance frequency of the listening room, because the frequency response of a closed room has a 12dB/oct rise in frequency response, due to the cavity effect starting approximately half a octave below the fundamental mode of the room.

Yes, I would agree BUT there is one thing. The division upon LF an ULF is purely semantic division that we invent in order to stratify out verbiage. We presume that LF is bass and ULF is not tonally auditable bass. In reality there is no such a division. A playback might have ULF channels the will set to aggressive and “modulate” a tonal output of midbass of LF channel. It also might be that a normal LF channels might not have any tonal information. Between those two polar examples there are zillion possibilities that do not comply with any rules of stratifications. So, with all out conversation there is always a give or take leverage. A playback might have some kind of a channel that goes from 100Hz and all the way down and still to be perfectly operational.

My desire to separate, at list logically bass on LF and ULF is primary derive from the fact that in most practical cases LF and ULF is need different attention. If you look at my particular case then it is obvious that only after “inventing” the separation of LF and ULF I was able to understand what I am doing with my one playback. I have no LF but midbass and ULF. It does not bother me at all but while setting the thing up it was very critical to me to get the idea that my Midbass and my Lowers Bass are different players in the auditablety game.

Generally I agree that the first room resonance along with reverberation time in the room are very big players but I feel that they might be overridden by audio methods. The crossover slope at lower frequency channel is superbly powerful tool that can do some amassing things. Unfortunately it is VERY hard, virtually impossible, to find good hard-suspended low Fs bass drivers the work with low crossovers. The low Fs drivers have cones that have to much inertia and too much freedom. Combine this driver with no enclosure air suspension (open or infinite baffle) and you have the bass driver that shaking like jelo-cake during earthquake. Put in there tone character and it is absolutely not accomplishable mixture. There was one very good 14” hard-suspended Klangfilm driver (if I am not mistaken it was 405, it was long time ago when I experimented with it) that had nice tone and worked very well with no enclosure suspension but it was 50Hz driver and below it was rapidly dying. If you want the same at 25-30Hz then good luck to find it.

If it was up to me to experiment then I would get 10 per side Altec 416/515 drivers, put them in sealed array and try to see what happen. Altec had 515B with 24Hz of Fs, I am sure it is possible to drive Fs even lower. The key is do not let them to excurt to much. If each of them moves for a few mm then it might be a good result. Where to get 20x515B drivers and to be able to much their characteristics? Do not ask and do not tell if you know where…

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-28-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Jorge
Austin TX
Posts 141
Joined on 10-17-2010

Post #: 53
Post ID: 17092
Reply to: 17091
Subharmonics and undertones
fiogf49gjkf0d

Just how important are  subharmonics and undertones in audio, and how they affect tone? 

I played around for a while with the Townshend supertweeters,  this is a ribbon tweeter that you can barely listen to:  you plug it in and put it next to your ear and can barely listen to a hishsishisi (they claim 20khz-100khz).  Once you place it on top of a speaker with limited high frequency response,  say 18 khz,  a big change can be heard on the sound mainly on midbass!! Of course this is an effect caused by subharmonics and overtones going higher than what we are able to hear! (Good luck time aligning these things at 20 khz!!!)

To have a tweeter that goes up to at least 40 khz is a big thing and really helps a lot to the "tone" or perception of audio, we all have listened to this effect.
A bunch of modern tweeters go up to 50 khz.  I just use the example above because it does nothing under say 18khz and it is funny how it is hard to see if they are even working! 

I like to think of ULF on these same terms, it is a frequency we can barely hear (depending on xover steepness) but which brings those undertones and subharmonics that "complete" the sound of a musical wave with all its companions...

BR cabinets and other bass solutions need to have a high pass installed, to avoid excessive cone movement,  thus limiting the frequencies they are playing to a certain point,  ussualy 20- 25 hz,  even if they never really get down there,  it is mainly a mechanical solution.  A sealed enclosure can have what is called an open bottom,  meaning no high pass at 20 hz.  This allows for the driver to bring out a certian level of undertones even if they come at a lower amplitude,  say minus 6-9 db they are still present and one can notice them.  

Now I play a lot with a bass solution that inlcudes a LF and ULF with different drivers in different cabinets:  Pro drivers down to 45 hz and a big 15" servo subwoofer from around 40 hz down to supposedly 16 hz (no way to really measure down there).  Both have sealed cabinets; the bass is very good. But it is a PITA to put in phase.  When not in phase both drivers can fight each other to the point where lowering the level on the LF or ULF can add bass to the room!  The thing is we are using a 140 hz UBH and we needed a LF solution that would go up to 150 hz with stamina!  I could not find anything that could go up to say 200 hz and down to 20 hz with the dynamics and character needed to match up to a horn system!  And we really wanted it to go under 30 hz!!!

So eventually the ULF channel should work in the same way a "supertweeter" UHF works,  adding all these harmonics to the fundamental note.


Now someone is about to jump out with a new product  made out of cow dung from the hymalayas and silver covered Berylium that resonates in such a way that you cannot listen to it "ever" but adds these subharmonics and undertones that make your system sound sooo much better,  and it can even be aplied over the phone!!

09-30-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
noviygera


Chicago, IL
Posts 174
Joined on 06-12-2009

Post #: 54
Post ID: 17104
Reply to: 17084
Dynamic consistency
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
 noviygera wrote:
p.s from my experience of having a 500 sq. ft. listening room with 7 ft. ceiling and having two 18" woofers in a infinite baffle configuration, it is not enough to pressurize the room. I am talking about low and medium listening levels. Four 18" would be just acceptable. Eight 18" woofers in infinite baffle will be good for a 500 sq. ft. room so there is your rough ratio according to my experience.

Herman, I would like to ask what methodological reasoning you uses to assess that your room of 500 sq feet having two 18" woofers in a infinite baffle it is not enough? Do you feel that not enough bass? You do not have more power or gain in your amplification? Do your drivers excurt too much? Do you hear too high distortions or compression?  Do you have measurements in the room at the frequencies that you are interested in?

The reason I ask as I feel that 4x 18 inchers for 500sq feet room is certainly wonderful but it is nowhere near absolute minimum. A good pair of 416/515 drivers with moderate 40Hz would perfectly fine for 500 sq. ft. Sure the more drivers and more size is better but when we do it we just minimize the excursion of each driver and improve sound by spreading all problem across multiple transducers allowing each transducer to be not as good as a single driver. Anyhow, I would be interested to know how you came to the concussion you have came. 
 
The caT


Romy,

I came up with the conclusion by following my personal reasoning of consistency in dynamics. I say personal because no one else I know explicitly agreed with this reasoning. It is simple reasoning. I believe that to have proper sound in any system the dynamics must be consistent from top to bottom, by this I mean not loudness of sound but output in terms of potential and even pressurization of room. For example, if we look at a musical instrument like a trumpet or violin or any percussion instrument, there is a natural correlation between pitch and size, they are proportional. A small trumpet plays a high pitch at the same scale as a large trumpet plays a low pitch. It would be unnatural to force two equal size trumpets to play different pitch equally, with the same power of input.

So I think same applies to any sound producer and that is why I reason that if my midrange horn (lets say it's a proper horn) has the volume of "x" than the midbass horn should have the volume "4x" and bass horn to have the volume "16x". But I cannot accommodate "16x" so as you are doing, I am using sealed boxes (well actually I am using infinite baffle) to replicate the potential of our ideal bass horn "16x" volume. This is just my theory and my best replication is to at the least replicate the mouth area of the bass horn.

The closest approximation of potential of a sealed bass channel to the potential of a bass horn is to replicate the mouth area with driver surface area. So lets just approximate the mouth area of a 20Hz horn(s). Just convert that to a number of 18" or 24" or whatever diameter woofers and you are at my best approximation of "ideal". But since this is all maybe a b.s. theory then what do we have in practice?

With two 18" in an infinite baffle I have enough output in decibels keep up with horns to a certain point but this almost worthless. because there is not enough potential. So what happens is there is no dynamic consistency and also no consistent pressurization of the room at different frequencies, specifically the bass range. Decreasing or increasing the output of the 18" subs does nothing to the rate of pressurization, as does changing the crossover type and point. I measured my system response but it does not show anything bad.

An extreme case of the worst solution would be to use two high excursion 8" woofers for the bass, just to make a point. However if the rest of the system was proportional to the bass section, lets say a 5" mid and 1" tweeter, than the 8" woofers would be in a situation of dynamic consistency, in my opinion.

In your sitation, it would be different again, since you are using huge midbass horns, your bass filler channel will be covering less than usual so maybe it's not as critical to get that range absolutely right. But still.. Do you have any more attic space available?
10-03-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,966
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 55
Post ID: 17115
Reply to: 17104
The little glory of my small woofers.
fiogf49gjkf0d
This weekend a local audio guy came to my palace and was bitching about his bass. I have small 1 cub feet pair sealed foxes with 8” version of my 25W drivers, I think they are 21W. I used them on the side of my bed to allow my old Koshka to climb in my bad. The guy asked to demonstrate them and I hooked them up in my video room in mono configuration with my undisclosed secretive mini-monitor. This instant setup showed very pleasing sound with absurdly good bass for this no-efforts configuration. What made me to write this post is that I heard the sub-100Hz sound of my 25W driver and it made me to feel like coming back home. You can name it whatever you wish: rubber sound, compressed sound, dynamically-limited sound but I just love it. It was not 8 or 16 or 32 drivers, they were not in the boxes large enough and they were not 10” but 8”. Still it was that character, that softness and that cleanness that I do like very much.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 3 of 3 (55 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Bass drivers inquiry..  Re: To free up the 6C33.......  Audio Discussions  Forum     10  78275  08-12-2005
  »  New  NOhorn channel for “the melody range”...  Curbing the enthusiasm...  Audio Discussions  Forum     10  109527  09-19-2005
  »  New  Macondo Alternation. Extending the LF line-array..  Macondo and not only Macondo positioning...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     8  134877  10-29-2005
  »  New  Exceptional loudspeakers drivers..  Compression tweeters...  Audio Discussions  Forum     34  378861  06-12-2006
  »  New  Macondo’s lowest channel...  What truly are you tryin to accomplish?...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     150  1232986  09-15-2010
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts