ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Really big sub, bad pic  (Read 6556 times)

Duane Massey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2189
    • http://www.ozknozz.com
Really big sub, bad pic
« on: March 28, 2010, 06:18:52 pm »

http://i44.tinypic.com/9ih36o.jpg

Approx dimensions were 17' wide, 7' tall (inside), and 23' deep.
Had 5 TAD1601 woofers, each receiving a massive 80watts each!

Yes, that is drywall (2 layers over 4 layers of 3/8" plywood, all glued together)). The fire marshall insisted these were room structures and had to have gypsum coverage.

There were a pair in this room (roughly 10,000 sq'). This was in the later 70's.
Logged
Duane Massey
Houston, Texas, USA

Ben Lawrence

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
    • http://vtaudiovisual.com/
Re: Really big sub, bad pic
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2010, 07:55:31 am »

The original Matterhorn

Silas Pradetto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3047
Re: Really big sub, bad pic
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2010, 09:19:48 am »

I want to live in a subwoofer!
Logged

Duane Massey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2189
    • http://www.ozknozz.com
Re: Really big sub, bad pic
« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2010, 10:44:44 am »

Although this pic doesn't show it, the top of the cabinets were constructed of 2x12's on 12" centers. They were topped by floors with metal railings and spiral staircases, along with a couple of stand-up tables and a few stools.

The walls were also constructed of a mixture of 2x6's and 2x4's, with the "cavities" filled with sand.

No handles were provided.
Logged
Duane Massey
Houston, Texas, USA

Art Welter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4874
Re: Really big sub, bad pic
« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2010, 02:38:27 pm »

Duane Massey wrote on Tue, 30 March 2010 08:44

Although this pic doesn't show it, the top of the cabinets were constructed of 2x12's on 12" centers. They were topped by floors with metal railings and spiral staircases, along with a couple of stand-up tables and a few stools.

The walls were also constructed of a mixture of 2x6's and 2x4's, with the "cavities" filled with sand.

No handles were provided.


How did they sound?
What did the rest of the system consist of?

Art Welter
Logged

Duane Massey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2189
    • http://www.ozknozz.com
Re: Really big sub, bad pic
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2010, 07:55:51 pm »

Art, I can honestly say that I've never heard their equal. Admittedly, we were limited by the fact that vinyl was the predominate media in that era, but we did bring in a 1/2 track reel machine with an "audiophile" recording of a few selections, including "1812 Overture". Disco was the big thing at first, so we did have a lot of "boom boom" happening.

When a decent cut was played, you could place a balloon at about 10' from the mouth of one of the horns and it would move off the dance floor within a few measures. The low end was very accurate; if the recording went "bump" the system went "BUMP". not "boom". If you walked into the horn mouth (which was not uncommon for the patrons) your chest would feel quite a bit of impact, but the it was difficult to see any speaker cone movement, even while shining a flashlight on the cones.

The rest of the system consisted of 4 Community Leviathans w/ Wilder woofers, 4 Community horns w/ TAD 4001's, and 4 Community horns w/ TAD 2001's. Electronics (the weakest part of the system) was all custom-built by our company, and was a pile of mono 80-watt amps with 2 mono 4-way crossovers.

Logged
Duane Massey
Houston, Texas, USA

Art Welter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4874
Re: Really big sub, bad pic
« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2010, 09:43:43 pm »

Being impressed with 8 foot long straight horns around the time you built this, I can imagine a 23 foot deep horn would be a stunner.

How many 80 watt modules were used on the sub?
Ever measure the SPL?
Logged

Duane Massey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2189
    • http://www.ozknozz.com
Re: Really big sub, bad pic
« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2010, 10:01:49 pm »

Art, we didn't have test gear back then, just our ears. Not exactly a high-tech company just some partially insane guys who gravitated towards the unusual. Each 15" woofer in the big horns  had it's own amplifier. The Levi's were each driven by one amp, and the horns were paired up on separate amps.

Somewhere there are pics of the construction process, and the best one shows one of us inside the compression section installing the woofers. To perform this task, there was a removable "hatch" on the top, and we had to lower ourselves into the compression section to bolt in the woofers. We even built a ladder inside as part of the structure.

I will probably never get the chance to build something like this again, although we did build a few smaller horns over time. Lot of work, but a lot of fun (and satisfaction).
Logged
Duane Massey
Houston, Texas, USA

George Friedman-Jimenez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 302
Re: Really big sub, bad pic
« Reply #8 on: April 01, 2010, 07:12:11 pm »

How did the sound quality compare to a modern well tuned system in the same size room?
Logged

Duane Massey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2189
    • http://www.ozknozz.com
Re: Really big sub, bad pic
« Reply #9 on: April 01, 2010, 07:53:51 pm »

George, that's a difficult question to answer. To this day I've never heard any system with the low-freq response at full volume, period. These were a pair of full-size, no-compromise 20hz horns, and they were the tightest subs at high volume levels that I've ever heard.

The rest of the system was less impressive, although it sounded quite good. This was a dance system, and the focus was only on the dance floor. When you were on the floor it was extremely clear and transparent, even at high levels, and the dynamic range was flawless. Of course, nothing in the system was working very hard.

Would it compare to a $ 250k system of today? Maybe. maybe not, but the entire system cost the client less than $ 20k. I will say that the dynamic range was as good or better than anything I've heard. It would have been interesting to hear a well-produced CD instead of vinyl, as that was the biggest limitation of the system.
Logged
Duane Massey
Houston, Texas, USA
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 19 queries.